Crockerham v. State

• Decision Date: 05 May 1947
• Docket Number: 36337.
• Citation: 202 Miss. 25,30 So.2d 417
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: CROCKERHAM v. STATE.

30 So.2d 417

202 Miss. 25

CROCKERHAM v. STATE.

No. 36337.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 5, 1947

L. A. Whittington, of Natchez, and Jas. A. Torrey of Meadville, for appellant.

Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and R. O. Arrington, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.

L. A. SMITH, Sr., Justice.

Appellant was indicted and tried for murder of Turner Moreland, in the Circuit Court of Franklin County. The jury found him guilty of manslaughter and the court sentenced him to serve a term of ten years in the State Penitentiary.

Assignments of error are: Refusal to sustain a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence; admission of certain evidence offered by the State as to a quarrel between appellant, his wife, and one Jack Burl; overruling appellant's objection to the State's recalling the widow of the deceased, in rebuttal allegedly in violation of the rule, which had been invoked the granting of the State's instructions and the refusal of Instructions 1 and 2 asked by and denied to appellant.

Appellant and his wife, and the deceased and his wife, lived at opposite ends of a small 'shotgun' house, not far from a woodworking plant where both Crockerham, the appellant, and Moreland, the deceased, worked for the same employer. They had been on bad terms with each other for more than a year prior to the killing on July 8th, 1946.

On the 4th of July preceding, occurred the incident involving the quarrel of appellant and his wife with Jack Burl, over a mere trifle, but which they both resented bitterly. It was introduced into the evidence by the State, to show both a motive of appellant for the killing and his threat to do it. Appellant, convinced that deceased was siding with Jack Burl, said to him, according to the State's evidence, 'You can take up for Jack Burl if you want to, but this is arisen and it is going to come to a head and when it comes to a head everybody is going to know it.' The only reaction of deceased then was to reply, 'It could come to a head now.' Four days later, as stated, the slaying took place.

On the day it occurred, Turner Moreland, the deceased, went to work, stacking lumber at the mill, but Chris Crockerham, the appellant, stayed at home. On that day, too, a few minutes before her husband was due back for dinner, the wife of Turner heard a pistol shot, and looking, saw Chris with the pistol in his hand. She heard her husband exclaim, 'O Lord, have mercy.' This was on a path back of the garden, at a cattle gap, which was one of two routes followed when Turner and Crockerham went to and returned from the mill, and the more frequented way. The cattle gap was in a small depression between two slight declivities, and Chris was standing somewhat above Turner, as testified for the State and as confirmed by the range of the bullet in the body of deceased. The widow ran down there, and eased her husband's head and straightened his legs and then ran, screaming, for help. She tried unsuccessfully to flag some passing motorists. She saw no knife or weapon by her husband's body while at the scene. She sent an acquaintance to stay with her husband until she got back, but she did not return. The body was soon removed. This acquaintance and several others, after discussion, decided to search the clothes of Turner before his removal. The only thing found in the way of a possible weapon was a small unopened pocket knife, still in Turner's pocket.

The sheriff came and arrested Chris Crockerham, who stated to the officer that, 'he came down the path to the gap and Turner was coming in and he said he spoke to Turner and said 'Turner, why don't you do some of that threatening talk in the open and not do it in the house'.' The sheriff testified further that in this statement to him almost immediately after the killing, Chris claimed that Turner threw his hand behind him and said, 'I will do it', whereupon he shot Turner. The Sheriff also asked him if he saw Turner have a gun or a knife or anything else with which to fight, and appellant replied, 'No.' However, he claimed he did not want to wait for Turner to shoot him. On the witness stand, appellant told an entirely different story from his statement to the sheriff, ante, immediately after the event, saying to the jury: 'Turner come through the gap. He got on this side of the gap about five or six feet this side, then Turner threw this hand (showing) in his pocket. I put my hand in my bosom. Turner come out with a knife. I could see this much of the knife handle (showing) and I could see just about this much of the blade--three inches of the blade. * * * I said, 'Turner, you throw that knife down'. I spoke three or four times,' but Turner continued to advance, he said, and suddenly sprang at appellant who shot once and fatally wounded Turner. He said Turner's wife picked up the knife. She denied doing so, in rebuttal, and, indeed, no witness, according to the record, ever claimed to have seen any such knife, other than appellant.

Appellant although reputed to be a hard, constant worker, did not go to work on July 8th, 1946, but stayed around home, as stated supra, and between nine and ten o'clock that morning armed himself with the fatal pistol, concealing it in his overalls. He was not well, he explained, and just loafed around the house. However, he decided a few minutes before twelve o'clock, on this particular day, to do without his noon day meal, and go to the mill to gather some blocks for fuel. He left his part of the joint tenement on such an errand, he said, although over the same path he knew Turner would take about the same time, returning from the mill to his portion of the common domicile for his midday meal. Appellant's version was that they met in the cattle gap...