Boyd v. United States

Decision Date04 January 1892
PartiesBOYD et al. v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

A. H. Garland, for plaintiffs in error.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for the United States.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted in the court below for the crime of murder, alleged to have been committed on the 6th day of April, 1890, at the Choctaw Nation, in the Indian country, within the western district of Arkansas; the first count alleging that the person murdered, John Dansby, was a negro, and not an Indian; the second, that the defendants were white men, and not Indians. The court, in its charge to the jury, said that the second count differed from the first 'by alleging that Eugene Standley, alias Eugene Stanton, [he is charged that way in both counts,] and John Boyd, were white men, and not Indians. The proof, without any controversy, shows that Standley is an Indian; therefore you will confine your finding, if it should be a verdict of guilty, to the first count in the indictment, if the proof shows that fact with reference to Standley, and you should find him guilty. If it shows such other facts as are necessary to give the court jurisdiction, as are alleged in the first count of the indictment, then your finding will be on that count, provided you should find a verdict of guilty. If you should find a verdict of not guilty, it may be general in its character, and it would be responsive to both charges.'

The defendants were found guilty of murder as charged in the first count. A motion for a new trial having been overruled, the defendants were condemned to suffer the punishment of death.

The proof was conflicting upon many points, but there was evidence tending to show the following facts: In the night of April 6, 1890, the defendants, Boyd and Standley, with John Davis, alias Myers, came to a ferry, on Cache creek, in the Indian country, a short distance from Martin Byrd's, at whose house, at the time, were John Dansby, the deceased, Joseph Byrd, a brother of Martin Byrd, and Richard Butler. The defendants and Davis, or one of them, called to the ferryman, Martin Byrd, to come and set them over the creek. Byrd protested that he did not like to do work of that kind after dark, but finally consented to get the key of the boat, and take them across the He went to his house, avowedly to obtain the key; and, after remaining away some time, returned, accompanied by Dansby, Joseph Byrd, and Richard Butler, each with weapons. When Martin Byrd reached the ferry-boat, and was about to unlock the chain by which it was held fast,—Boyd being at the time in the rear end of the boat. While Davis and Standley were sitting upon the bank of the creek,—Davis said to him, 'Lay down that chain, and throw out your rusty change.' Upon Byrd saying, 'Don't you want to cross?' Davis, holding his pistol upon Byrd, replied, with an oath, 'No, it's your money we're after.' Dansby started towards Byrd, and was shot in the back by Boyd. When Davis presented his pistol at Martin Byrd, the latter, dropping upon his knees, drew a pistol. The ball from Davis' pistol passed over Byrd's head, but Davis was shot by Byrd, and died instantly. The firing immediately became general. Butler shot Boyd in the back, Standley shot at Joseph Byrd, but was himself slightly wounded by a shot from the latter's pistol. Boyd, although badly wounded, went up the creek some little distance, but, being followed, was secured, and carried to Martin Byrd's house as a prisoner. He remained there until he was arrested by an officer upon the charge of having murdered Dansby. Standley escaped, and it was some time before he was arrested. Dansby lived a few days only, and died at Martin Byrd's house, from the wounds inflicted upon him on the above occasion.

Upon the part of the defendants there was evidence tending to show a case, in some respects, materially different. They contended—to use the words of their counsel'that while Boyd was sitting in the boat, and Standley and Davis on the bank, the ferryman and his party came around with Winchester rifles and revolvers, and, before they suspected anything, had leveled their guns on him and Davis, and told them to give up their pistols; that they had the description of some men that had robbed Judge Taylor; that he handed up his pistol, which they took, and Davis drew his out, but whether to comply or to resist he does not know; that they fired on Davis and killed him; that he turned, and as he did so, was shot in the shoulder, and fell, the ball remaining under the point of the shoulder-blade; that they ran after Boyd, and while they were gone he picked up Davis' pistol, and ran off and hid.'

The principal witness for the prosecution at the trial was Martin Byrd. When presented as a witness, the defendants objected to him as incompetent, by reason of the fact that he had been convicted of the crime of larceny, and sentenced to the penitentiary, the record of such conviction being offered in support of the objection. The government thereupon produced a pardon from the president of the United States, as follows:

'Benjamin Harrison, president of the United States of America, to all whom these presents may come, greeting: Whereas, Martin Byrd, in the United States district court for the western district of Arkansas, was indicted, charged with larceny, convicted May 10, 1884, and on the 19th day of May, 1884, was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in the Detroit house of correction, Detroit, Michigan; and whereas, the said Martin Byrd has been discharged from said prison, he having served out the term for which sentenced, and was accredited for good behavior while in prison; and whereas, the district attorney for the western district of Arkansas requests the pardon of said Martin Byrd, in order to restore him to competency as a witness in a murder trial to be had July 1st, next, in said district court at Little Rock, in which request the judge of said district court unites: Now, therefore, be it known that I, Benjamin Harrison, president of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, divers other good and sufficient reasons me thereunto moving, do hereby grant to the said Martin Byrd a full and unconditional pardon. In testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington this 27th day of June, A. D. 1890, and of the independence of the United States the one hundred and fourteenth. [The place of the seal.] BENJAMIN HARRISON. By the President. JAMES G. BLAINE, Sec. of State.'

This pardon removed all objections to the competency of Martin Byrd as a witness. The recital in it that the district attorney requested the pardon in order to restore Byrd's competency as a witness in a murder trial to be had in the district court at Little Rock did not alter the fact that the pardon was, by its terms, 'full and unconditional.' The disability to testify being a consequence, according to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
228 cases
  • Gilbert v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 24, 1966
    ...completely extraneous issue, and convict appellant because of an offense with which he was not charged. Boyd v. United States, 142 U.S. 450, 457-458, 12 S.Ct. 292, 35 L.Ed. 1077 (1892). Moreover, as evidence of Mr. Goslaw's credibility, the entire line of inquiry was cumulative. Mr. Goslaw ......
  • People v. Coleman, Cr. 17822
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 3, 1975
    ......358, 361-364 [25 L. Ed. 2d 368, 373-375, 90 S. Ct. 1068]; Coffin v. United States (1895) 156 U.S. 432, 453-456 [39 L. Ed. 481, 491-492, 15 S. Ct. 394]; cf. Cupp v. Naughten ...Rptr. 10, 447 P.2d 106, 34 A.L.R.3d 454]; see also Boyd v. United States (1892) 142 U.S. 450, 458 [35 L. Ed. 1077, 1080, 12 S. Ct. 292]; Ralls v. Manson ......
  • Spencer v. State of Texas Bell v. State of Texas Reed v. Beto 8212 70
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1967
    ...1171, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250 (1959); Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948); Boyd v. United States, 142 U.S. 450, 12 S.Ct. 292, 35 L.Ed. 1077 (1892). In Michelson, the Court stated: 'Courts that follow the common-law tradition almost unanimously have come to dis......
  • Sorenson v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 13, 1909
    ...... L.R.A. 582, 16 Am.St.Rep. 283; State v. Raymond, 53. N.J.Law, 260, 21 A. 328; State v. Vance, 119 Iowa,. 685, 94 N.W. 204; People v. Sharp, 107 N.Y. 427, 14. N.E. 319, 1 Am.St.Rep. 851; People v. Molineaux, 168. N.Y. 293, 61 N.E. 286, 62 L.R.A. 193. Mr. Justice Harlan, in. Boyd v. United States, 142 U.S. 450, 458, 12 Sup.Ct. 292, 295, 35 L.Ed. 1077, speaking to the admission in. evidence of robberies committed by defendants, separate and. apart from the homicide under investigation, said:. . . . 'They. were collateral to the issue to be tried. No ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...57 Cal.App.3d 266, §9:63 Boyd v. City of Montgomery , 472 So.2d 694, 697 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985), §9:38.4 Boyd v. United States (1892) 142 U.S. 450, §9:11 Bracamontes v. Superior Court (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 102, §5:53.8 Bracher v. Superior Court (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1445, §3:22.2 Bracy v. ......
  • Pre-trial discovery and motion practice
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Innovative DUI Trial Tools
    • May 1, 2021
    ...to Due Process The courts have held that propensity evidence violates an accused’s right to due process. Boyd v. United States (1892) 142 U.S. 450; Michelson v. United States (1948) 355 U.S. 469; Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62; McKinney v. Rees (9th Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1378. Federal ......
  • Guiding Presidential Clemency Decision Making
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy No. 18-2, July 2020
    • July 1, 2020
    ...of Marvin Mandel, a former governor of Maryland, because his co-defendants received parole). 191. See, e.g., Boyd v. United States, 142 U.S. 450, 453–54 (1892). 192. Ruckman, US Clemency, supra note 46, at 257–58. 193. Id. at 258 (attributing that motivation to President Ronald Reagan). 194......
  • Balancing Interests Under Washington's Statute Governing the Admissibility of Extraneous Sex-offense Evidence
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 84-2, December 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...presumption against admitting evidence of other crimes distinguishes Anglo-American evidence law from that of civil-law nations. Id. 10. 142 U.S. 450 11. Id. at 458. 12. Id. 13. Edward J. Imwinkelried, A Small Contribution to the Debate Over the Proposed Legislation Abolishing the Character......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT