Ex parte Bollin

• Decision Date: 21 May 1910
• Citation: 109 P. 288,3 Okla.Crim. 725,1910 OK CR 98
• Parties: Ex parte BOLLIN.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

109 P. 288

3 Okla.Crim. 725, 1910 OK CR 98

Ex parte BOLLIN.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

May 21, 1910

Syllabus by the Court.

Evidence examined, and held to justify refusal of bail to a defendant in custody upon a charge of murder.

A mere conflict of testimony, even upon a vital issue, does not of itself entitle a defendant held for murder to be admitted to bail. The evidence must be considered as a whole; and when so considered, unless a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of murder is generated, bail should be denied.

Heat of passion alone does not reduce a homicide from murder to manslaughter; there must be adequate provocation, and the fatal blow must be the unpremeditated result of the passion thus aroused.

Mere words, gestures, or threats, however opprobrious or violent constitute in law no adequate provocation for passion such as will reduce a homicide from murder to manslaughter.

Application by W. J. Bollin for bail by writ of habeas corpus. Bail refused.

Massingale & Duff and Smith & Wagner, for petitioner.

Chas West, Atty. Gen., Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen Rutherford Brett, and Billups & Ash, for the State.

RICHARDSON J.

On the 18th day of April, 1910, the petitioner was arrested, charged with the murder of one George Wilson alleged to have been committed on that day in the city of Cordell in Washita county. A preliminary examination was had, and petitioner was ordered committed without bail to await further action against him on said charge in the district court. Thereafter an information was filed against petitioner in the district court of Washira county, charging him with the crime of murder, upon which information he was duly arraigned, and to which he entered a plea of not guilty. On April 25th the petitioner filed in said district court an application for a writ of habeas corpus by which he sought to be released on bail. The writ was allowed, and made returnable on April 28 1910. On the return day the cause was submitted to the court upon the testimony taken in the preliminary hearing, and on May 3, 1910, the court, after hearing and considering the matter, made and entered an order denying the petitioner bail. On May 6, 1910, an original application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking the allowance of bail was filed by the petitioner in this court, and the writ was granted. Return thereto has been made. The matter by agreement has been submitted to us upon the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing and upon the briefs and oral argument of counsel, and now comes on for determination.

There is no diversity of opinion as to the law applicable; and the sole question here presented is: Does the evidence before us show such facts as should induce a reasonable doubt as to whether petitioner was justifiable or excusable in his act, or as to whether the offense was only manslaughter? If it does, then the petitioner is entitled to bail; otherwise, he is not.

We have carefully read and considered all the evidence presented, as well as the briefs in behalf of each party; and we have come to the conclusion that the judgment of the district court of Washita county was right, and that the petitioner should be denied bail.

The testimony tends to show that one side of petitioner's farm fence was in the road reservation, and that at the instance of some three or four citizens of the township among whom the deceased was one, the township trustees directed the road supervisor to notify petitioner to draw in his fence; that the road supervisor in person delivered such notice in writing to the petitioner on the morning of the killing and within an hour before it took place; that upon receipt of the notice the petitioner said to the supervisor that the fence in...