Chapman v. State

• Decision Date: 28 October 1903
• Citation: 76 S.W. 477
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

76 S.W. 477

CHAPMAN v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 28, 1903.

Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; Tom C. Davis, Judge.

Ed Chapman was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

D. M. Short & Sons, for appellant. Jas. T. Polley and Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was indicted for the murder of his brother, Will Chapman, and on the trial was convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 20 years.

The record shows that the homicide for which appellant was tried occurred in a difficulty in which appellant and his father-in-law, Harris Prince, and his brothers-in-law, Jodie Prince, Wiley Prince, and Edgar Prince, were arrayed on one side, and Len Hanks, Will Chapman, Hardy Chapman, and probably J. C. Chapman, the father of the latter two, and the father-in-law of Len Hanks, were arrayed on the other side. The immediate cause that led to the difficulty was a scandalous charge made by Len Hanks against Mrs. Ida Chapman, wife of Ed Chapman, and who was also the daughter of Harris Prince. This was occasioned by a report, which appears to have been circulated by Mrs. Ida Chapman, in regard to an undue intimacy between Miss Lou Chapman and Len Hanks. When this report reached Hanks, he traced it, as he thought, to Mrs. Ida Chapman, and he then charged her with undue intimacy with one Dutch Wheeler, which occurred some time previous to her marriage with Ed Chapman. It appears that after these charges were made by Len Hanks and conveyed to appellant, appellant demanded proof, and on Sunday night preceding the difficulty on Tuesday some effort was made by Len Hanks to substantiate what he had said about Mrs. Ida Chapman. Appellant, Hanks, and Will Chapman went to certain persons in the neighborhood in order to convince appellant; among others to one Boque. It appears that at first appellant became satisfied of the truth of the charge, and determined to leave his wife. Subsequently, some time during Monday, he seems to have changed his mind; and he and Jodie and Harris Prince demanded further proof on the subject, and by agreement with the other parties they were to meet on Tuesday morning early at a certain place 100 or 200 yards from Len Hanks, who lived about 200 yards from J. C. Chapman. Harris Prince at the time lived about a mile from Chapman. It appears from some of the evidence that appellant, Ed Chapman, made up his mind on Monday not to leave his wife, and on that night he stayed at his father-in-law's (Harris Prince), where his wife was. During Monday evening and night it is also shown that Wiley, Jodie, and Edgar Prince busied themselves in procuring arms for the meeting on Tuesday, assigning to the parties from whom they procured the guns some other reason than the intended meeting; for instance, that they wanted the guns to go hunting, etc. It is also shown that appellant and those with him stated their purpose in going to the rendezvous on Tuesday was to receive further proof of Mrs. Ida Chapman's infidelity, and, after they had heard what the parties said, to carry the matter into the courts. In this connection Jodie Prince is shown to have stated, when one of the parties said, "You had better drop the matter," that: "No, they would not. If Ida was guilty, she had to bear it; but, if she was innocent, the matter would be prosecuted." However, Will or Hardy Chapman, the other party, in reply said, when they come the next morning, they had better come with their fighting clothes on; to which he replied that he always wore his, and he guessed the others did too. On Tuesday morning, about 7 o'clock, Harris Prince and appellant, Ed Chapman, went over to J. C. Chapman's, walking through the field. Jodie, Wiley, and Edgar Prince went on horseback by the road. All these parties were armed with guns or pistols. Harris Prince, after arriving at Chapman's together with appellant, went down into the field where Len Hanks, his wife, and Miss Lou Chapman were working. Hanks states that at this time appellant drew his gun on him, and attempted to shoot him, but Harris Prince interfered, and told him to hold up until they got all of them together. These parties went on to the house. En route Harris Prince inquired for J. C. Chapman, and went by the smokehouse, where he was mending a backband. The other parties proceeded to the house. Hanks went into the house and got a shotgun, took out the shells loaded with small shot, and replaced shells loaded with buckshot, placing other shells in his pocket. He then came out, and all sat down on the gallery; that is, Len Hanks and Miss Lou Chapman sitting on the steps together, appellant, Ed Chapman, sitting to the north and beyond the steps, and Mrs. Hanks standing near by him on the ground. In the meantime, Jodie, Wiley, and Edgar Prince reached the rendezvous, which was some 100 or 200 yards distant. They were waiting there when Will Chapman came by. He invited the party to come on to the house. They said they were at the place where they agreed to wait, and they would stay there until the other parties came. Will remarked that he would then go on, and bring Hanks up. About this time it appears the difficulty which precipitated the combat began at the house. While appellant and Hanks were sitting on the gallery, Hanks remarked, with reference to the alleged report, that he (Hanks) had been intimate with Miss Lou Chapman (appellant's sister); that appellant ought to take it up as much as he or any one else. To which appellant replied, "I ought, ought I?" and immediately drew his gun, and attempted to shoot Hanks. The gun was knocked up by Mrs. Hanks, and the load struck the roof of the house. Hanks then fired at appellant. In the meantime Will Chapman arrived at the house, and, according to defendant's evidence, immediately engaged in the difficulty. About this time Harris Prince and J. C. Chapman came up. Harris Prince, according to some of the evidence, fired at and killed Will Chapman. As soon as Jodie, Wiley, and Edgar Prince heard the firing they came up on their horses in a gallop, and engaged in the difficulty, the firing in the meantime continuing between the parties already there. According to the testimony of appellant, as soon as Wiley Prince came up, Will Chapman began firing at him, Wiley returning the fire, shooting twice at Will Chapman, and killing him. While this was going on, Hanks was retreating, and appellant, Jodie, and Edgar Prince were firing at him. As Hanks came out the gate, he fired at Jodie Prince, shooting him down. Appellant still pursued Hanks, they firing several other shots at each other until Hanks made his escape. In all some 20 shots were fired by both sides. As a result, Len Hanks was severely wounded, Will Chapman was killed dead on the ground, Jodie Prince and Mrs. Len Hanks both received mortal wounds, from which they subsequently died. The state's theory was that the killing of Will Chapman was in pursuance of a conspiracy previously entered into between appellant and the Princes on the one side to arm themselves, and, under pretense of seeking a peaceful solution of the trouble in regard to the alleged slander against Mrs. Ida Chapman, they agreed to meet Hanks and the Chapmans at the appointed place on Tuesday, and there precipitate a difficulty and kill Hanks, and whoever else might interpose to protect him or prevent the accomplishment of their purpose; and that in pursuance of this appellant, Chapman, did precipitate and bring on the difficulty with Hanks, and that the subsequent killing of Will Chapman by either Harris Prince or Wiley Prince was within the scope of and the proximate result of said conspiracy to kill Hanks, and that appellant was responsible therefor in the same measure as if he himself had committed the homicide. On the other hand, appellant's theory was that the agreement to meet in the vicinity of J. C. Chapman's on Tuesday morning was made in good faith in order to settle the matter in regard to the slanderous reports against his wife, and that the parties carried their arms in order to protect themselves against any assault or threatened violence on the part of Len Hanks and the Chapmans; but there was no conspiracy to bring on a difficulty in order to kill Hanks and those with him. He further contended that the difficulty between himself and Len Hanks was a casual difficulty, which occurred between them, and, although he might have been in fault in assaulting Len Hanks, yet, in the absence of a conspiracy entered into between him and the Princes on the one side to kill Hanks and his brother, Will Chapman, should be interfere on behalf of Hanks, he would not be responsible for the killing of his brother, Will, by either Harris Prince or Wiley Prince; that this was especially true since there was no evidence showing or tending to show that he knew Jodie, Wiley, and Edgar Prince were on the ground, or in that vicinity, at the time of the difficulty between him and Hanks, and that the testimony did not show any knowledge on his part that his brother, Will Chapman, was present during the difficulty, or engaged in it. This is a sufficient statement of the case and of the theories presented, both for the state and the defendant, in order to discuss the legal questions involved.

On the trial appellant objected to the testimony of Hardy Chapman to the effect that on Monday evening before the killing of Will Chapman, which occurred on Tuesday morning, he met Jodie Prince, and had a conversation with him with reference to the report being circulated about Len Hanks and Lou Chapman; and also in regard to the conduct of his sister-in-law, Mrs. Ida Chapman, and Dutch Wheeler, before she married appellant, Ed Chapman. This conversation, among other things, involved the declaration or statement on the part of Jodie Prince to the effect that, if his sister was guilty, she would...