Faucett v. State

• Citation: 134 P. 839,10 Okla.Crim. 111,1913 OK CR 269
• Parties: FAUCETT v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 09 September 1913
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

134 P. 839

10 Okla.Crim. 111, 1913 OK CR 269

FAUCETT v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

September 9, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

The question of immunity is one for the court alone, and should never be submitted to a jury.

A justice of the peace, acting as coroner at an inquest for murder, is without power to compel a witness to answer questions which might incriminate such witness, and is without power to grant immunity to any witness for answering self-incriminating questions.

A justice of the peace is without jurisdiction to hold an inquest except over the bodies of persons, the causes of whose death are unknown, and who are supposed to have died from unlawful means.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; L. M. Poe, Judge.

Walter Faucett was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.

A justice of the peace, acting as a coroner at an inquest for murder, cannot compel a witness to answer incriminating questions.

After a jury was impaneled and sworn to try the case, counsel for appellant filed the following special plea: "The defendant, Walter Faucett, further pleads that, after the deceased, John Cox, was stabbed, and after this defendant had been arrested on a warrant issued by John J. Slack, justice of the peace of Tulsa township in Tulsa county, Okl., charged with the offense of cutting and stabbing the said John Cox with intent to kill the said John Cox, and while said prosecution was pending against said defendant, he was compelled to testify under legal process concerning said killing over his objection, and, after he had claimed the protection of section 21 of article 2 of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, that he was so compelled to testify at the coronor's inquest, held before John J. Slack, justice of the peace of Tulsa township, Tulsa county, Okl., in the city of Tulsa, Okl., for the purpose of legally and judicially determining how the said John Cox came to his death, and by what means, and for the purpose of prosecuting criminally the parties so found to have caused his death, and that the defendant was compelled to appear before said justice of the peace at said inquest in obedience to a subp na issued by said John J. Slack, justice of the peace and ex officio coroner of Tulsa county, Okl., commanding him to appear at said hearing to testify concerning the death of said John Cox, which subp na was duly and legally served upon this defendant by a legally appointed, qualified, and acting deputy sheriff of Tulsa county, Okl.; that, in response to said subp na, this defendant appeared before the said justice of the peace and ex officio coroner at said inquest, and was compelled by said justice of the peace and ex officio coroner to testify before the coroner jury, there duly legally impaneled and constituted, concerning the killing and the death of said John Cox, after he had objected to so testifying, and had claimed the protection of the said constitutional provision, and that, under the compulsion aforesaid, the defendant then and there detailed to said jury all the facts and circumstances surrounding the cutting and death of the said John Cox, so far as known to this defendant; and that, by reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this defendant became immune from this prosecution by virtue of section 27 of article 2 of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and the state of Oklahoma has thereby lost its right and power to prosecute this defendant upon this charge, or under this information. Walter Faucett."

The court inquired of counsel for appellant if he desired to offer any evidence in support of the special plea. Counsel for appellant stated that he thought it would be proper to establish the allegations on the trial, and submit the matter in the instructions to the jury. The following evidence was then introduced:

G. H Butler testified for the state that he was a physician, and attended John Cox when he received the injury from which he died; that Cox had received a knife wound in his left side between the tenth and eleventh ribs; that the wound was 1 1/2 to 2 inches in length, and ranged downward to the right; that deceased lost a great deal of blood and a part of the contents of his bowels, consisting of undigested food, which came through the wound; that the wound extended almost entirely through his abdominal cavity, and passed almost through the said Cox, ranging downward and backward; that deceased died from the effects of the wound.

J Harlow testified for the state that he knew John Cox, the deceased, and was also acquainted with appellant; that appellant was interested in a barbecue stand in the city of Tulsa; that on the day of the difficulty witness went with John Cox to this barbecue stand; that a fight occurred in the barbecue stand between John Cox and appellant; that witness does not know how the fight began; the first thing he knew they were fighting, and that appellant got deceased down on the floor, when appellant was pulled off of the deceased by the crowd present, and deceased was put out of the house; that after the deceased was put out of the house witness saw appellant coming out with a knife; that appellant went outside of the house, and this was all that witness saw; that witness did not see any of the fight inside of the house.

J. W. Fox testified that he was acquainted with the deceased; that on the day of the difficulty with J. Harlow he entered the barbecue restaurant kept by appellant for the purpose of taking a drink with said Harlow; that the deceased attempted to come into the restaurant also and stepped in the door; that witness said to deceased, "John, get out of the door, this man (referring to appellant) wants to get out." Deceased says, "If he wants out any faster that I am getting out, let him put me out"; that when deceased said this appellant struck deceased a lick in the butt of the ear, and then deceased and appellant began to fight; that witness left the place, and did not see any of the trouble, because he did not want to be a witness in police court.

J. C. Selser testified for the state that he saw appellant stab the deceased; that witness first noticed the deceased on the sidewalk by the barbecue restaurant of appellant, bareheaded, and that some one inside of the house handed deceased his hat from the door; that deceased took his hat and started to walk on across the sidewalk; that appellant came out of the house with a knife in his hand; that deceased started in a kind of a run; that appellant overtook the deceased about half way across the street and stabbed him with a knife; that deceased was not doing anything except trying to get away when appellant overtook him and stabbed him with a butcher knife; that witness was about 90 feet away from the place of the stabbing.

W. T. Downs testified for the state that he saw appellant stab the deceased; that deceased came out of the building occupied by appellant as a barbecue restaurant, and that appellant came out after him with a knife in his hand; that appellant overtook the deceased just after he got off of the sidewalk; that deceased was trying to go away; that appellant overtook him and stabbed him with a butcher knife; that deceased had nothing in his hand at this time; that after appellant stabbed deceased appellant went back into his building; that when deceased was stabbed by appellant deceased grabbed his sides with his hands and came on across the street.

Albert Nance testified for the state that he remembers the occasion when the deceased was killed by appellant; that witness was standing on the platform of Mr. Osborn's feed store and saw deceased when he was put out of the...