Gibson v. State

• Decision Date: 22 April 1908
• Citation: 110 S.W. 41
• Parties: GIBSON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

110 S.W. 41

GIBSON v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, De Witt County; James C. Wilson, Judge.

Monk Gibson was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

RAMSEY, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at death.

For some two weeks prior to September 28, 1905, J. F. Conditt resided on a rented farm about two miles from the town of Edna, in Jackson county. His family consisted of himself and his wife, Mrs. Lora Conditt, and the following children: Mildred, a girl about 12 years of age, and Herschell, Jesse, Joseph, and Loyd, ages, respectively, 10, 6, and 3, the last-named being an infant about 10 months old. On the 28th day of September, 1905, he left home very early in the morning, near 4 o'clock, to go about six miles, where he was engaged in the rice business. On Monday before the homicide appellant, Monk Gibson, had been employed by Mr. Conditt to work on his place, and during most of that time was engaged in various kinds of farm work. Conditt lived close to a number of negro families, and about a mile from a white man named John Gibson. There were several negro families living near by, and his residence was close to a road not infrequently traveled, and was situated on the prairie, and was in open view of his neighbors, black and white, for quite a distance. About half past 1 or 2 o'clock, the fact was discovered that his wife and all of his children had been murdered, except the infant babe, and, when the neighbors came to make a more particular observation, it was found that Mrs. Conditt had been killed by being struck on the head with a blunt instrument and her skull crushed. A bloody adz belonging to Conditt was found close by, and it was found that she had met her death by this instrument. The girl, little Mildred, had her throat cut, and when found was lying near the bed bathed in her blood, her body exposed, with visible and unquestionable evidences of having been outraged. The little boy, Joseph, was found just outside of the house, on the ground, with his throat cut and his head almost completely severed from his body. The other boys, Herschell and Jesse, were found some 75 yards from the house about 30 steps apart, one on the inside of the wire fence, and one just on the outside. Appellant was arrested on the evening of the homicide, and was confined in jail until the next day, when, while being transferred to jail in Hallettsville, he made his escape and remained at large until October 9, 1905. There were no evidences in the room of any struggle by any of the parties; none of the furniture was turned over, and no evidences of any disarrangement of the usual furniture and appointments of such a household, making it apparent that none of the persons killed had made, or were able to make, any considerable struggle. Nor was there, notwithstanding the immense quantities of blood about the floors, any evidence of any bloody tracks or footsteps on them. The boys in the field, it should be stated, were evidently killed with a bar of iron, which was found near the body of the oldest child. There are many circumstances which make it unlikely that all of these people could have been killed by any one person without making an outcry which could have been heard, and without disarrangement of the furniture, chairs, tables, mirrors, etc. It was shown that appellant alone knew of the location of the adz, and that he was perfectly familiar with the premises, location of the rooms, etc. It is not certain when the murder occurred, but there is some circumstances which tend to indicate that it must have happened near or before the middle of the forenoon. Early in the afternoon the first alarm was given by appellant; he stating to Augusta Diggs, to his own people, and to the witness John Gibson, that somebody was at Mr. Conditt's house running Mrs. Conditt, or chasing her, as some of the witnesses put it. On inquiry by some of them, he stated that he was unable to say who it was, or whether they were negroes or white men. He stated, however, that there were two of them; that one of them was a good large man, and the other not so large; and that both of them had a black mustache. It was shown by all the testimony that one standing on any portion of the plowed ground where he was at work not only could have seen and ascertained whether persons about the house were negroes or white men, but could easily have recognized any one with whom they were at all familiar. So that it is manifest that if he saw these people, as he states, he must have known whether they were negroes or white men, and it is equally true that, if he was acquainted with them at all, he knew who they were. At another time appellant stated that the persons at Mr. Conditt's house whom he saw running Mrs. Conditt were two negroes, named Al and Woodson Ware; but, upon being informed of the fact that both of these negro men were at a wholly different place many miles from the scene of the tragedy, he admitted that he had made a false statement about the matter, and then claimed that, while he knew these people, he was mistaken, and that one of the men whom he saw looked like Ed Powell, and the other a larger and blacker man. At another time he stated that Felix Powell was one of the men running Mrs. Conditt, and that while he was in the field Felix came up to him and led him up and pushed him into blood of Mrs. Conditt, and told him if he ever told it he would kill him. This he afterwards denied. He also stated that he was not in any room except the room that Mrs. Conditt was in. It is remarkable, however, that, notwithstanding he claimed to have made only a momentary inspection of the bloody work of murder, he was able to give a particular description of the position of all the bodies of the dead people at the house, and a like particular description of how they were injured.

When first arrested there was blood on many portions of appellant's clothing, and on his body. There was, for instance, blood on his sleeve, and on the inside of the sleeve. On being interrogated as to how that blood got on his sleeve, he stated that he had got this blood on his clothing from a scratch on his wrist. An examination showed that, while there had been a very slight scratch on his wrist, it was not sufficiently extensive to account for this blood, and, besides, it was dry, and there was no blood at all about it. His attention was then called to two or three splotches of blood on his shirt in front near the collar, and also some blood right down near the tail of his shirt, the front portion of which had been cut or torn off, and blood on the remaining portion of the tail of his shirt, and smears of blood on the inside next to his body. He accounted for this blood by the statement that his nose had bled. His nose was carefully examined, and it was found that his nose had not bled. There was no blood in or about his nose, and, after same had been carefully and thoroughly examined, there was nothing to indicate that same had bled at all recently. No explanation was given why or how the tail of his shirt had been torn off, but he undertook to account for the blood on the portion of his shirt tail which remained by stating that same was caused from a small scratch he had on his penis, which he had made by going through the barb-wire fence; but a careful examination of this member disclosed no injury to or scratch on it. There was also blood on both of his feet, and on both of his legs, both on the inside and outside of both legs, but rather more on his right leg. One of the witnesses say there was a great quantity of blood on each leg running from the size of a match head up to the size of a quarter. Blood was also found on his overalls. He undertook to account for the presence of this blood on his legs by saying he had gotten same on him by riding a sore back horse, but when the pants, which he says he was wearing, were examined, especially near the seat, which presumably would come in contact with the back of the horse, there were no indications at all of any blood on them. In fact, it is doubtful if a single statement made by him of any kind touching his whereabouts and presence was corroborated by any other testimony, but it was substantially all disproved, and many of his statements afterwards confessed by him to be untrue. No one seems to have seen him during the morning, except about 10 o'clock, when Felix Powell was seen in the field with him walking along by his side while appellant was engaged in plowing, and by other witnesses at a time hereafter named.

The night the murder was discovered, the peace officers of Jackson county obtained some bloodhounds from a convict camp near by, and carried them to near where the dead bodies of the boys lay in the field. They soon struck a trail, and, after going a short distance, bayed loudly, and it was found that close to the place where the dogs opened upon the trail there was found a track of a barefooted man. This track was measured and found to correspond very closely with the size of Gibson's foot, and it was shown that on the day in question he was barefooted. It was further shown in the evidence that there was much plowed ground between where Monk Gibson was when he said he saw the men chasing Mrs. Conditt and the Diggs house, where he first went, and yet it was the testimony of all the witnesses that there were no tracks leading across this plowed land to the Diggs place, which land he must have crossed if he had gone directly, as he says, to give alarm. It was shown in the evidence that there was in the room where Mrs. Conditt was found the prints of two bloody hands, both very much alike, and both singular and remarkable, in that they showed plainly the imprint of three fingers, and a mere dot, which might have been made and was made by a crippled...