Hall v. Territory.

• Decision Date: 23 August 1900
• Citation: 10 N.M. 545,62 P. 1083
• Parties: HALLv.TERRITORY.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

10 N.M. 545

62 P. 1083

HALL

v.TERRITORY.

Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.

Aug. 23, 1900.

Syllabus by the Court.

In a trial for homicide, where the question whether the prisoner or deceased commenced the encounter which resulted in death is in any manner of doubt, evidence of uncommunicated general threats of violence made by deceased a few hours prior to the homicide against any one found in a certain situation is admissible, where there is any evidence of a hostile demonstration against the prisoner by the deceased at the time of the homicide,-the deceased finding the prisoner within the scope of said threats,-and where there is evidence tending to prove that within a year prior to the homicide there had been communicated to the prisoner numerous threats made against his life by deceased.

Appeal from district court, Chaves county; before Justice Charles A. Leland.

William Hall was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

In a trial for homicide, where the question whether the prisoner or deceased commenced the encounter which resulted in death is in any manner of doubt, evidence of uncommunicated general threats of violence made by deceased a few hours prior to the homicide against any one found in a certain situation, is admissible where there is any evidence of a hostile demonstration against the prisoner by the deceased at the time of the homicide, the deceased finding the prisoner within the scope of said threats; and where there is evidence tending to prove that within a year prior to the homicide there had been communicated to the prisoner numerous threats made against his life by deceased.

Freeman & Cameron, for appellant.

Edward L. Bartlett, Sol. Gen., for the Territory.

CRUMPACKER, J.

Appellant, William Hall, was, in the district court of the Fifth judicial district of the territory of New Mexico, within and for the county of Chavez, on the 15th day of March, 1899, by indictment, charged with the murder of one C. A. Crump, and upon his trial, on March 28, 1899, was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. The case is brought here on appeal. The important undisputed facts in the case are that shortly before daybreak on the morning of January 8, 1899, the appellant (a gambler by profession), while in a state of sobriety, visited a colored prostitute, named Pearl Johnson, at her brothel, which was a tent, situate in the south part of the town of Roswell; that within 15 minutes after he arrived there, and while sitting on the bed, engaged in removing his shoes, the deceased (who “kept” the prostitute, and whose mistress she confessed herself to be), in a state of intoxication, knocked on the outside or screen door of the tent; that the prostitute thereupon called out to the deceased that she had company, whereupon deceased “jerked the screen door open, it being fastened by a hook over a nail,” and pushed open a second or wooden door, which was closed and unlocked, and entered; that the light in the tent was dim; that four or five shots were fired in the tent, one passing directly through the deceased's body, on a line with the heart, and either one or two between the eyes, ranging downward, and one over the right eye, the range of which was not stated, and another bullet finding a lodgment about 18 inches to the right of the door where the deceased had entered; that deceased, appellant, and the witness Pearl Johnson were the only persons present at the scene of the homicide; that deceased was killed by the appellant; that, immediately after the killing, appellant left the place and gave himself up to the authorities; and that the witness Pearl Johnson moved the body of the deceased from the inside to the outside of the tent, and remained at the tent until persons attracted by the shooting came upon the scene. The prosecution, to establish its theory of the case, was compelled to rely absolutely upon the truth of the testimony of the witness Pearl Johnson, whose account of the tragedy differs from the appellant's in all important particulars, from the moment deceased jerked open the screen door and entered the tent. She testified: That after deceased had knocked. and she had replied that she had company, deceased jerked the screen door open and entered, one hand being at his mouth, holding a cigarette, and the other hand hanging by his side, when appellant jumped up from the bed where he had been sitting, and, with his pistol in hand, asked deceased “what he broke the door in on him for.” That deceased replied, “I didn't break it in. It was already open,-and that appellant, with an oath, said to the deceased, “I have paid to stay here for the day, and the best thing you can do is to go back to town.” That deceased replied, “‘All right,’ and asked Hall [appellant] for a match.” That Hall said he had no match, and that witness then got up from her bed to get Crump (deceased) a match, with which he lighted his cigarette. That Hall then asked Crump if he had a gun, and, after Crump replied, “No; you are welcome to search me,” that Hall searched him for a gun, but did not find any. That Crump smiled during the search. That Hall then caught Crump by the lapel of the coat and began to curse him. That Hall turned Crump loose again, and Crump told Hall he had the best of him, and invited him to go down town, where he would get a gun and make him throw his in the river. That Hall replied that he did not want to have any trouble with him at her house; did not want people to say he had trouble at her house. That Crump again said, “‘All right. Come down town,’ and he would get a gun and make him throw his in the river.” That they then stood facing each other for a few minutes. That they both moved about the same time. That Hall had fallen back towards the stove. That Crump also moved from the door towards the stove. That “Crump told him that he had his gun, but he acted a damned s- of b___ about it. Then Will [Hall] shot him. After he shot Crump, I ran out. In going out, I had to run by Crump. He was between me and the door.” That Hall aimed his second shot at her as she was going out the door. That while she remained outside three more shots were fired in the tent. That she returned to the tent, and found Hall sitting astride the body of Crump, and saw him strike Crump once in the face with the handle of his pistol. That she asked Hall not to strike him again, when Hall got up, put on his coat, told her to quiet her nerves, not to give him away, and thereupon left. In corroboration of this witness the prosecution introduced testimony tending to show that no pistol or weapon was found on the deceased after the killing, that the shots which took effect in the head ranged downward through the bones of the face, that the probable effect of any one of the shots entering deceased's body was to cause instantaneous paralysis, that there were bruises on the face, and that appellant was physically the superior of the deceased. The appellant stated the facts as follows: “Somebody knocked. I did not know at the time who it was. He said, ‘Open the door.’ She [Pearl Johnson] told him she had company. He said, ‘To hell with your G-d___ company. Who is it?’ I told Pearl not to let him know who it was. She said it was Will Hall. He jerked the screen door open on the outside, and he kicked the other one open; and as he came in he run his hand in here (indicating) and caught hold of his gun, and was pulling it, and said, ‘You big s- of b-! I have got you at last.’ I pulled my gun and shot him. When I heard him breaking in, I was sitting on the edge of the bed, and I got up as quick as I could; and he come right on in, and I stepped sort around back of the bed and shot at him twice as he came on at me. The light was very dim, and the smoke blinded me for a minute or two. He then crowded me down to the foot of the bed, and I am not certain whether I struck at him twice. I know I struck him one good lick on the face with my gun and knocked him back. Then when I knocked him back it looked like he kind of squatted down, and I shot at him twice more. Did not shoot at him any time after had an opportunity of knowing he was fatally wounded. Did not strike him after he was down. Put my gun in the scabbard and left. Pearl Johnson was down on the floor screaming, talking to deceased, saying, ‘Oh, my darling!’-going on. The only words he spoke when he came that door was, ‘You big s- of b-! I have got you at last.’ That was the only conversation that passed between us. At the time I fired, I thought sure he would kill me.” Appellant also testified to a number of occasions when he and Crump had difficulties while gambling. That several times Crump had come to appellant's gaming table, created a disturbance, and pulled his gun. “Once punched around with his gun in my money. Throwed the money around on the table. Told me he was going to shoot my right eye out.” That deceased had cursed appellant, and on at least seven different occasions within a year prior to the homicide had threatened to kill appellant. That he feared deceased, on account of the threats he had made. That he knew deceased on the night of the homicide had had a quarrel with witness Pearl Johnson. That he did not think deceased would return to her place that night, and that he did not expect to meet him there. Of the witnesses introduced by the defense, six testified to threats made to them by deceased against appellant, all of which were communicated to appellant, and two offered to testify to threats made by deceased shortly before the homicide, when about to go to Pearl Johnson's tent, that “if he found any one there he would jump the s- of b-out; that he wanted to catch some s- of b- there; that he would kill the first s- of b- he caught there,” -which were uncommunicated. The defense sought also to explain the range of the shots, by showing that deceased was in a stooping position at the time he was shot in...