## Facts

- Gladys Broadhurst was indicted for first-degree murder of her husband, Dr. W. D. Broadhurst, on the theory that Alvin Lee Williams killed him as her agent and she was a principal under Oregon law despite not being present.
- The State’s theory was that defendant married the victim for money and conspired with Williams to kill him to obtain his estate; evidence showed the victim had executed a will favoring defendant.
- On October 14, 1946, the victim was killed on a highway near Jordan Valley, Oregon.
- Williams testified that he staged car trouble, struck the victim with a heavy wrench when the victim stopped to help, and later shot him with a shotgun, causing death.
- Williams had been separately indicted for the homicide; at the time of defendant’s trial he had not pleaded guilty and had not been adjudged guilty or not guilty.
- Williams testified both to the alleged agreement with defendant and that the final shooting occurred because he feared for his own life.
- Defendant did not testify and presented no affirmative witnesses, focusing on attacking Williams’s competency and credibility, lack of corroboration, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in opening statement, and claimed errors in evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether a separately indicted alleged accomplice is competent to testify when the accomplice’s own criminal case is pending and unresolved.
2. Whether accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence tending to connect defendant with the murder, and whether the evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury and deny a directed verdict.
3. Whether the prosecutor’s opening statement contained improper remarks requiring a new trial.
4. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in admitting circumstantial and post-crime conduct evidence (including alleged fabrication or suppression of evidence) and in instructing the jury on accomplice testimony, corroboration, and principal liability via an agent.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and life sentence.
- The court held Williams was competent to testify despite his separate pending indictment; his status affected credibility, not competency.
- The court held Williams’s testimony was corroborated by independent evidence that tended to connect defendant with the crime, including motive and post-crime conduct.
- The court held the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, was sufficient to go to the jury; denial of a directed verdict and a new trial was proper.
- The court held the prosecutor’s opening statement was made in good faith and did not cause prejudice warranting reversal.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings or jury instructions addressing accomplice testimony, corroboration, circumstantial evidence, and the State’s proxy/principal theory.

## Legal Principles

- A separately indicted accomplice is not disqualified from testifying solely because the accomplice’s own case is unresolved; any interest in the outcome bears on credibility for the jury.
- A conviction may rest on accomplice testimony if there is independent corroboration that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; corroboration may be circumstantial and need not independently establish guilt.
- On review of a denial of a directed verdict, the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Evidence that an accused fabricated or suppressed evidence is admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt and may be considered as showing consciousness of guilt.
- Improper remarks in opening statement warrant relief only if they exceed good-faith expectations of proof and result in prejudice affecting the fairness of the trial.

## Conclusion

The court upheld defendant’s first-degree murder conviction on a theory of principal liability through an agent, concluding that the accomplice witness was competent, his testimony was adequately corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence (including motive and conduct suggesting consciousness of guilt), and no claimed trial errors—including the prosecutor’s opening and the court’s evidentiary rulings and instructions—required reversal.


State v. Broadhurst, 196 P.2d 407 (Or. 1948)