Hamlin v. State

• Decision Date: 02 November 1898
• Citation: 47 S.W. 656
• Parties: HAMLIN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

47 S.W. 656

HAMLIN v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 2, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Coleman county; J. O. Woodward, Judge.

J. F. Hamlin was convicted of being an accomplice in murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Jenkins & McCartney and H. C. Randolph, for appellant. F. L. Snodgrass and Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of being an accomplice in murder, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life; hence this appeal.

It appears from the record that Walter Holmes was the husband of one Carrie Holmes. They lived together as husband and wife a number of years, and had several children. During the last few years prior to the homicide, they lived near the village of Santa Anna, in Coleman county. Appellant was a widower, and lived about 300 or 400 yards from them, and in view from the rear of the Holmes' residence. The relations of deceased and his wife appear to have been agreeable until about a year prior to the decease of the former, about which time it appears that an attachment sprang up between her and appellant, which resulted in illicit intercourse between them. This was carried on for some time, until at length deceased became suspicious of his wife. On Tuesday morning, December 1, 1896, he called his wife into the room, and accused her of being too intimate with appellant. She finally admitted the fact, and told him that she loved appellant, and that he loved her. On request, she produced certain letters from appellant to her, under promise that deceased, after reading them, would return them to her. He read two letters, and returned them to her, but, on reading the third, he retained it. She became very angry, and threatened him if he did not give it back to her. This deceased refused to do, but at once got in his buggy, took his gun with him, and proceeded to the town of Coleman, and there conferred with his lawyer, Mr. Sims, exhibiting the letter to him. Sims advised him not to return to his home, and not to eat a meal in the house again; that his life would be in danger if he remained at home. On the same morning, appellant was informed by Mrs. Carrie Holmes of what had occurred, and he was warned to beware of her husband. Appellant left on the same morning, going to the little town of Glen Cove, about 15 or 20 miles distant, and remained there until the latter part of the week, ostensibly organizing a lodge of the Woodmen of the World. Deceased returned to his home on that evening, and slept with his wife that night. He and his wife had some conversation about the matter of her infidelity, and it seems there was something like a reconciliation between them. He did not return the letter to his wife. After he had gone to sleep, his wife got up, found the letter in his pocket, and destroyed it. On Wednesday, the deceased was taken violently ill, and he continued so until the following Tuesday, when he died. His wife waited upon him during that time, and he also had the attendance of other persons. Physicians were also called in, and during his illness there were several consultations between the physicians as to his ailment. It does not appear that the physicians were able to determine the nature of his illness; nor does the record indicate any apprehension on their part that deceased was suffering from poison. Appellant returned from Glen Cove on Saturday, before the death of the deceased, but it does not appear that he ever went into the presence of the deceased before his death. He was seen on Sunday or Monday, however, in the rear of the premises of the deceased, about his barn, and under circumstances that indicated a conference between him and the wife of the deceased. During the burial service, some circumstances occurred which indicated that some suspicion then existed as to the cause of the death of the deceased. The conduct of appellant and Mrs. Carrie Holmes shortly after the death of Holmes became suspicious. On the evening of the burial, Dr. Hayes, a brother-in-law of deceased (after the burial), rode in the buggy with the wife of deceased on her way home, and some conversation occurred between them with reference to deceased. He subsequently had several interviews with her in regard to his death. On December 12th, an interview occurred between Hayes and Mrs. Carrie Holmes at his house, in the hearing of Hayes' wife and one Phillips, who was stationed outside of the house at the window. Mrs. Holmes, in this interview, in effect admitted the illicit relations between herself and appellant, and also that she had poisoned the deceased, but refused to inculpate appellant therein. Subsequently to this, about the 8th of February, Dr. Hayes saw appellant at his office, in the town of Santa Anna, and on the evening of the same day interviewed him by appointment at his (Hayes') house, in regard to the cause of the death of the deceased. During all this time, Hayes was busy collecting evidence in the case. On the 20th of February, he caused the body of the deceased to be exhumed; and a portion of the intestines, together with a portion of liver and lungs, were placed in a vessel, and securely fastened, and sent to a chemist at Ft. Worth, to be analyzed and tested as to poisons. Prof. Chase, of Ft. Worth, finished the analysis of the contents of the stomach on March 5th; and his testimony shows that the stomach contained a large quantity of arsenic,—"in short, the liver, stomach, and duodenum showing altogether about 3¾ grains of metallic arsenic, or 5 and a fraction grains of white arsenic." The testimony shows that the ordinary fatal dose of this drug is about two grains. Mrs. Holmes and appellant were indicted for the crime on the 27th day of February, 1897, and were both arrested within a short time thereafter, and placed in jail. The indictment contains two counts,—one charging appellant as a principal in the homicide, and the other charging him as an accomplice. The court only submitted the question of accomplice to the jury. A great deal of the testimony on the trial relates to the principal in the homicide, alleged to be Mrs. Carrie Holmes. This was limited in the court's charge to that purpose. The testimony connecting appellant with the offense, aside from certain testimony in the nature of confessions, is purely circumstantial. There are 32 bills of exception and 27 assignments of error in the record; but we will only discuss such as we deem material to a proper disposition of this case.

Appellant assigns as error the action of the court in regard to the impanelment of the jury. It seems that Parker had stated on his voir dire that he had an opinion, formed from having heard his uncle, who was a member of the grand jury that found the bill of indictment, express his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the appellant. The bill fails to show that the grand juror stated to the juror any fact in regard to the case; and the bill further shows that the juror stated that he could give appellant a fair and impartial trial, regardless of any opinion that he might entertain. So far as we are advised, whatever opinion the juror may have entertained was formed from a purely hearsay source. He had talked with no witness, had heard no testimony, and he was clearly a competent juror, under the rule laid down by this court. See Suit v. State, 30 Tex. App. 319, 17 S. W. 458; Adams v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 285, 33 S. W. 354; Trotter v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 468, 36 S. W. 278. It is not attempted to be shown that the juror Templeton, who was subsequently taken on the jury, after appellant had exhausted his challenges, was not a fair and impartial juror.

Appellant strenuously urges that the court committed a reversible error in permitting the state to prove by the witnesses Hayes and Stanlee a conversation between them and appellant at the residence of Dr. Hayes on the 8th of February, 1897, said testimony being substantially as follows: Witness told defendant that he (Hayes) and Stanlee wanted him to make a full statement of his and Mrs. Holmes' connection from beginning to end. In reply, he asked Hayes if he would believe him; to which Hayes replied that he would believe him if he told the truth, but that, if he did not tell the truth, he would not believe him. Appellant then stated that his and Mrs. Holmes' relations began last November, a year ago; that she wrote him the first letter, but he paid no attention to it, and that she wrote him a second letter, and he answered it; that he advised her it was wrong. Witness then asked him why he kept it up, to which he replied that she kept on and was so persistent that it became so irresistible that he could not help it, and that he got to loving her. Witness then asked him if that was all, and he said, "Yes; that is all." Witness then said, "How about the 20-year plan?" to which appellant replied, "That is so; we agreed to marry, and wait for one another twenty years if necessary;" but he told her that Walter Holmes was a stout, robust man, and that he would likely outlive both of them. Witness then asked him about their marriage, and he replied they were to be married on the 17th of December next, if circumstances would permit. Witness then asked him, "What circumstances would prevent it? You are a widower, and she a widow." Appellant replied that he did not know. Witness then asked him how he knew Holmes had his gun, and was going to kill him; and he said Mrs. Holmes told him. He was then asked when she told him, and he said, "The day before Holmes got sick." Witness then said to him, "Look here, you planned this whole thing, and are a murderer; and I do not understand how you could have associated with this old man [referring to Dr. Stanlee], and been with him in his office as you have, and be guilty of such a thing;" to which appellant made no reply. Witness then told him he could go, "but asked him to try not to meet us any more on the streets, and to avoid...