Crawford v. State

• Decision Date: 30 September 1867
• Citation: 44 Tenn. 190
• Parties: Martin Crawford v. The State.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

44 Tenn. 190

Martin Crawford

v.The State.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1867.

FROM HAWKINS.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for murder, and convicted, at the June Term, 1866, of manslaughter. From which he has appealed to this Court. Judge R. R. BUTLER, presiding.

JAMES T. SHIELDS, for Crawford.

THOS. H. COLDWELL, Attorney-General, for The State.

MILLIGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The prisoner Martin Crawford, with twenty-four others, was indicted in the Circuit Court of Hawkins County, for the murder of George Dykes. Crawford, alone, was put upon his trial at the June Term, 1866, and by a jury of the county, found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and sentenced to the Penitentiary for the period of five years; from which he has prosecuted an appeal in error, to this Court.

The facts necessary to be noticed are brief, and substantially as follows:

The homicide occurred in April, 1865; and at the time of its perpetration the deceased was a paroled Federal Soldier, residing in the neighborhood in which it took place. The war was near its close, and the rebel army, which then occupied a portion of this part of the country, north of the Holston River, was about retiring before the Union forces.

The deceased, with several others belonging to the Federal army, on the night of the killing, was, it appears, at the house of one Jones, on the south side of the river, whose wife was dead, for the purpose of aiding in digging the grave and otherwise assisting in the funeral services. Jones' house stood in the disputed territory, and parties from the opposing forces alternately occupied this middle ground, as they were enabled by the strength of their respective forces, to do so.

The prisoner was a private in the rebel service, under the command of General Vaughn, and on the night of the homicide, he constituted one of a scouting party of rebel soldiers under the immediate command of one Captain Ross, who appears to have been on the south side of the river, in the disputed territory. The distinct object and purpose of this party, does not very clearly appear from this record. It seems, however, that they killed three men, and robbed the house of another, during the excursion. The proof shows the party had heard of the death of Mrs. Jones, and went to the house; for what purpose, we are only left to infer. The deceased was there, and heard their approach and attempted to escape, when he was some distance from the house he was fired on, and mortally wounded. The others of the party at Jones' house were captured and carried away.

There is no evidence that the prisoner was at the house at the time of the firing, much less that he actually participated in the killing, otherwise than as it appears from his own confessions, after his arrest on this indictment, and while in the custody of the officer.

His confessions are proven to have been freely and voluntarily made, and they are copied into the bill of exceptions as brought out by the State, in the following language: “The defendant, and two others, arrested with him on the same charge, stated that they were along on the expedition when Dykes was killed, but were not present at the time. The defendant said he was not present--that he did not want to go with the scout that night, and was ordered and forced to go by the Captain. That they heard before getting to the house of Jones, that his wife had died, and he expected there would be men there and some one would be killed, and he did not want to...