Coffman v. State

Decision Date19 April 1911
Citation136 S.W. 779
PartiesCOFFMAN v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Collin County; B. L. Jones, Judge.

Louis Coffman was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Smith & Wilcox, J. R. Gough, and R. C. Merritt, for appellant. George P. Brown, Co. Atty., Abernathy, Abernathy & Abernathy, and John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree; his punishment being assessed at death.

1. When the case was called for trial, appellant moved for change of venue, which was overruled after a full hearing. The evidence is rather voluminous on this question, and the witnesses testifying cover practically the entire county as to the feeling against appellant. All the witnesses, or practically all of them, state they had heard the case discussed frequently, and that the expression of opinion and thought in the county were adverse to appellant. Some of them state that they believed a fair and impartial jury could be had in the county, but this opinion was based on their belief that there were good men in the county who could discard their prejudice, and give appellant a fair trial. Some of the witnesses said that they knew of no personal prejudice against appellant. Practically all the witnesses testified that they never heard a single favorable expression in the county towards the appellant; that many of them expressed the opinion and belief that appellant ought to be hung.

To illustrate, the witness Goostree testified that he was a drummer for the wholesale grocery house of Boren & Stewart, and that he had been making trips once a week for eight years over the eastern half of Collin county and partly over the western half of Collin county; that he put in his entire time traveling; that he had heard this case discussed in every place he went, and the sentiment was against the appellant; that people generally say that he is guilty. He also stated that they had prejudged his case and pronounced him guilty, and the expressions toward him were bitter. The prejudice even extended to the lawyers defending him, and especially to one of them, Clarence Merritt. He further stated he had never heard anything in appellant's favor, but the people would say that he ought to be hung; that he had met a great many people, and the subject was discussed generally, and that was the general opinion among the people.

The witness Mallow testified that he lived at Lebanon, about 15 miles southwest of McKinney, and had lived there about 16 years; that he was deputy tax assessor, and traveled over precinct No. 6 last spring, which precinct extended from 8 to 10 miles south of Lebanon, or the Dallas county line, north to the western precinct, and includes the towns of Lebanon, Frisco, Prosper, and Rhea Mills, and includes the western and southwestern section of Collin county. This witness said he had heard the case discussed frequently, and from the discussion he had heard the sentiment was against the appellant; that he had never heard any favorable expression at all; that he did not believe a jury could be obtained that had not formed some opinion with reference to the facts of this case, and that such opinion was against appellant; that there were as many as 1,000 voters in said precinct, and that he had talked to and heard at least 50 per cent. express themselves, and that he had never heard a single favorable expression to appellant; that they all seemed to have prejudged his case as far as witness had heard, and some expressions were very bitter.

The witness Brown testified he lived 20 miles southeast from McKinney, on the Cotton Belt Railroad, between Nevada and Wylie; that he had heard appellant's case talked about, but could not tell how many times; that the talk he had heard was against appellant. He had heard one man say that, if he was a juryman, he would weigh the evidence just as clear as he possibly could, and would not let malice enter into his verdict.

Robbins testified: That he lived at Allen 14 years. He had heard the case discussed since it occurred. That he had heard it talked about Allen and everywhere else he had gone, and the talk was unfavorable to appellant. That the parties he heard talking about the case generally expressed their opinion that he was guilty. That there were about 450 people living in the town of Allen.

Gaddy testified that he had heard people talk about the case, and they seemed to think appellant was guilty. Most of them so expressed themselves, and he thought they could not get a jury in his community who had not formed an opinion.

Gladden testified that he lived 12 miles northwest of McKinney, about 4 miles from Weston. He had heard the case discussed. That it was common talk in the neighborhood for some time when people would get together. The discussion was unfavorable to appellant. He says: "I do not think I ever heard any one make a favorable expression."

Bell testified: That he lived 4½ miles northwest of McKinney for 13 years. He had heard the case discussed, and had heard it in McKinney and where he lived. That he had not been to any other place lately. The talk was against appellant, and that he was guilty. The case, he says, was discussed generally, and he never heard any expression in his favor.

McClure testified: That he lived 20 miles northeast of McKinney, near Moreland. He had heard the case discussed, and the sentiment was unfavorable to appellant. That he had never heard a favorable expression.

Ball testified: He lived three miles and a half west of Plano, and southwest of McKinney, all his life. He had heard the case talked about around Plano. That the sentiment that they expressed was unfavorable to appellant.

Smith testified that he had heard no talk that was favorable to defendant; that he had lived southwest of McKinney for 20 years.

Bennett testified: He had lived at Wiley for 21 years. This is about 20 miles southeast of McKinney. That the sentiment there was against appellant. That he never heard any one say anything for him. He had heard people generally express themselves as to his guilt, and that he was guilty.

Gay testified he was justice of the peace at Nevada, 25 miles southeast of McKinney; that his precinct was bounded on the south by Rockwall county, and on the east by Hunt county, and on the north by precinct No. 2; that his precinct was about 10 miles square; that he had heard the case discussed a good deal. The trend of the discussion, he says, was against appellant, and he could not recollect having heard any one say anything for him. They said he was guilty from what they had heard.

Kerr testified that he had heard the matter discussed, and the sentiment was against appellant; that he had heard one man speak favorably of him, did not recollect who he was, but he knew of no other favorable expression. He said: "I think the majority of the people I heard express an opinion believe he was guilty. I do not think I ever heard any one say he was not guilty." This testimony might be prolonged indefinitely. We have not thought it advisable to go further into this evidence.

We are of opinion that the change of venue should have been granted, and the trial court is ordered so to do. This question has been discussed in so many cases under a similar state of facts that it is hardly necessary to enter into a discussion of the reasons why the venue should have been changed. In the Faulkner Case, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 322, 65 S. W. 1095, it was said: "The statements of the witness * * * it occurs to us was enough, and more than enough, to convince the most skeptical mind that the case against appellant * * * was well known and thoroughly discussed throughout the limits of the county, and that the evidence against the appellant had permeated every portion of that community. True, a majority of the witnesses say that they could give appellant a fair and impartial trial, and they believed he could get such trial in the county, but they admit they had formed an opinion to the effect that appellant is guilty, * * * and that he ought to be hanged. * * * If fair trial by jury as guaranteed by the Constitution be of any worth, what bides it, or of what avail is it, if a citizen charged * * * is to be tried by a jury composed of men who have heard all about the offense and who believe he is guilty and ought to be hanged, and yet believe, * * * no doubt honestly, * * * that they can give defendant a fair and impartial trial? Prejudice is a sinister quality. It may possess a man and he be not aware of it; or, being aware of it, he may purposely conceal it, in order that he may vent his revenge. In according a change of venue, our statutes wisely provide against that prejudice which may creep into the jury box. It is intended to avoid as far as possible the impanelment of even one prejudiced juror; and our decisions proceed upon the idea that where a crime, on account of its atrocity, has become notorious and the prevailing sentiment in the community is that the party charged with the offense is guilty, he is entitled to a change of venue." To the same effect is Cortez v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 169, 69 S. W. 536.

It does not matter under questions of this character whether the prejudice is against the defendant or against his case. If the prejudice is against him personally, he cannot get a fair trial. If it is a prejudgment of the case, the reason is equally as strong why the change of venue should have been granted. This question was discussed in Randle v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 43, 28 S. W. 953. See, also, Myers v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 500, 46 S. W. 817; Barnes v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 297, 59 S. W. 882, 90 Am. St. Rep. 801; Alarcon v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 415, 83 S. W. 1116; Gallaher v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 296, 50 S. W. 393; Dobbs v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 629, 103 S. W. 918. These are a sufficient number of cases, we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Hoagland
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 5, 1924
    ... ... 579, 156 N.W. 73; State v ... Crafton, 89 Iowa 109, 56 N.W. 257; Richmond v ... State, 16 Neb. 388, 20 N.W. 282; Cox v. State, ... 90 Tex. Cr. 106, 234 S.W. 72; State v. Weisengoff, ... 85 W.Va. 271, 101 S.E. 450; Streight v. State, 62 ... Tex. 453, 138 S.W. 743; Coffman v. State, 62 Tex ... Cr. 88, 136 S.W. 779; People v. Pfanschmidt, 262 ... Ill. 411, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1171, 104 N.E. 804; Tennison ... v. State, 79 Miss. 708, 31 So. 421, and cases cited; 16 ... C. J. 203.) ... The ... following question properly states the law: "If the ... ...
  • Marshall v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 10, 1915
    ...court. See Harwell v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 233, 134 S. W. 701; Clements v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 161, 134 S. W. 728; Coffman v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 95, 136 S. W. 779; Paris v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 355, 137 S. W. 698; Burrell v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 635, 138 S. W. 707; Johnson v. State,......
  • Rubenstein v. State, 37900
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 5, 1966
    ...a change of venue have been enunciated by this Court many times. Streight v. State, 62 Tex.Cr.R. 453, 138 S.W. 742; Coffman v. State, 62 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 136 S.W. 779; Williams v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 202, 283 S.W.2d 239; also see: Cortez v. State, 44 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 69 S.W. 536, 537, and Manle......
  • Coffman v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 18, 1914
    ...at confinement in the penitentiary for life. This is the second appeal. The decision on the first is reported in 62 Tex. Cr. R. 88, 136 S. W. 779. His punishment on the first was assessed at death. The trial this time occurred in December, 1911. The record reached and was filed in this cour......
  • 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