Boyd v. United States
Decision Date | 04 January 1892 |
Parties | BOYD et al. v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A. H. Garland, for plaintiffs in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for the United States.
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
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:
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-
Gilbert v. United States
...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
......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
...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
...... 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 ......
-
Table of cases
...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
...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
...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
...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......