Buckler v. State
| Decision Date | 29 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | 31289 |
| Citation | 157 So. 353,171 Miss. 353 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | BUCKLER v. STATE |
(In Banc.)
1 HOMICIDE.
Evidence that prior to killing accused was in rags, and that after killing he wore reasonably good clothes, and that accused killed deceased for his clothes, showed sufficient motive for murder.
2 HOMICIDE.
Showing of motive is not indispensable to sustain conviction of murder.
3 HOMICIDE.
Evidence that accused called at deceased's home, engaged deceased in friendly conversation, and killed him with ax to obtain his clothes, sustained conviction of murder.
4. CRIMINAL LAW.
Evidence on preliminary inquiry as to competency of accused's confession of murder supported finding that confession was freely and voluntarily made, without hope of reward or fear of harm, and hence admission of confession was not error.
5. CRIMINAL LAW.
Passing upon conflicts in evidence bearing upon competency of confessions is within province of trial judge, and his ruling thereon will not be reversed unless clearly contrary to weight of evidence.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Washington county HON. S. F. DAVIS, Judge.
Oliver Buckler was convicted of murder and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
G. Ramsey Russell and Earl S. Solomon, both of Greenville, for appellant.
W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
In the circuit court of Washington county, the appellant, Oliver Buckler, was convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged, and from this conviction and sentence this appeal was prosecuted.
The testimony show that Martin Robinson, a tenant on a plantation near Greenville, lived alone in a cabin on the place. On Thursday, July 30, 1933, one of the tenants who was ploughing near this cabin detected a foul odor emanating therefrom and reported this fact to others. An investigation was then made by two of the neighbors and the body of Robinson was found on his bed, partly covered with a sheet, and in a badly decomposed state. His head had been crushed with some blunt instrument, and an axe was found lying near by. The bed upon which he was lying was blood-stained, and there were blood stains on the floor, which bore evidence that some one had tried to clean it. On Saturday evening, after the body of the deceased was found on Thursday, the appellant carried a pair of shoes to the home of a neighbor and told this neighbor that some one had broken into his home and had stolen some groceries and left a pair of shoes, "setting there at the cottonhouse." On the following day the shoes were identified as belonging to the deceased, and thereupon the appellant was arrested and placed in jail.
The sheriff testified that on Sunday night, a few hours after the appellant was placed in jail, he made a full, free, and voluntary confession to him. This confession was admitted in evidence over the objection of the appellant, and was, in substance, that the appellant went to the home of the deceased about eleven o'clock P. M. on the preceding Sunday and called the deceased; that the deceased invited him into the house, and that they sat there for some time talking and smoking; that he (the appellant) then picked up an axe which was near by, and struck the deceased three blows on the head, killing him; and that he then placed the deceased on the bed and took his clothes and certain cooking utensils and left the house. The sheriff further testified that the appellant also told him that he had no quarrel or argument with the deceased, but killed him because he wanted his clothes. He further informed the sheriff that he had hid the clothing which he took from the home of the deceased two or three hundred yards behind his (the appellant's) home, and offered to point out the place. The next morning he was carried to his home and there pointed out the place where the clothes were hid. All of the articles of clothing that were concealed behind the appellant's home were identified as having belonged to the deceased.
When this confession was offered in evidence, the appellant interposed an objection, and, in the absence of the jury, a preliminary inquiry was had to determine its admissibility. The sheriff testified that there were no threats or duress of any kind used or inducements offered to cause the appellant to make the statement, and that it was entirely free and voluntary. The appellant then testified that before he was placed in jail the deputy sheriff told him that "if he didn't tell it, he was going to beat him," and that the sheriff told him that it would be better for him if he told it. In rebuttal, the sheriff and deputy sheriff emphatically denied making these statements, and another witness who was with the deputy sheriff during the entire time ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. State
... ... made, the ruling of the trial judge will not be disturbed, ... unless the ruling is clearly contrary to the evidence ... Brown ... v. State, 142 Miss. 335, 107 So. 373; Stubbs v ... State, 148 Miss. 764, 114 So. 827; Buckler v ... State, 171 Miss. 353, 157 So. 353; Keeton v ... State, 167 So. 68; Whittaker v. State, 169 Miss. 517, ... 142 So. 517 ... The ... trial court did not err in permitting state witness, ... McDonahl, upon his cross-examination, to testify over the ... objection of the ... ...
-
Pullen v. State
... ... plans, although it is not necessary to prove a motive to ... sustain the conviction. Or, in other words, motive is not an ... indispensable element of murder ... Johnson ... v. State, 140 Miss. 889, 105 So. 742; House v ... State, 94 Miss. 107 48 So. 3; Buckler v. State, ... 157 So. 353; Motley v. Smith, 159 So. 553 ... There ... is no evidence upon which the jury could have found him not ... guilty by reason of insanity, and we say, further, that he ... was entitled to no instructions whatever which would ... authorize the jury to ... ...
-
Keeton v. State
...to the weight of the evidence. Brown v. State, 142 Miss. 335, 107 So. 373; Stubbs v. State, 148 Miss. 764, 114 So. 827; Buckler v. State, 171 Miss. 353, 157 So. 353. corpus delicti was sufficiently proven in order to admit appellant's corroborating confession. Where there is a confession of......
-
Quan v. State
... ... decision of a trial court will be sustained unless from the ... record it appears that his finding was contrary to the weight ... of the evidence ... Brown ... v. State, 142 Miss. 335, 102 So. 373; Stubbs v ... State, 148 Miss. 764, 114 So. 827; Buckler v ... State, 171 Miss. 353, 157 So. 353; Wohner v ... State, 175 Miss. 428, 167 So. 622; Keeton v. State, 175 ... Miss. 631, 167 So. 68 ... Particularly ... do we submit that the court did not decide this question ... against the manifest weight of the evidence in view of the ... ...