Hargus v. State
Decision Date | 03 December 1935 |
Docket Number | A-8925. |
Parties | HARGUS v. STATE. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1935.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. When a defendant, in a criminal case, appears for judgment, he must be informed by the court (or by the clerk under his direction) of the nature of the indictment or information and his plea and the verdict, if any thereon, and must be asked whether he has any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him. If no sufficient cause be alleged or appear to the court why judgment should not be pronounced, it must thereupon be rendered. Sections 3134, 3136, Okl.Stat.1931.
2. The judgment and sentence, in a capital conviction, should recite that all the requirements of the statute have been complied with, and where the jury find the defendant guilty of murder and assess the death penalty, the judgment should contain such verdict, or recite the fact that defendant was convicted of murder by the verdict of a jury and the death penalty assessed.
3. For the purpose of preserving the peace and to prevent crime, a peace officer or private citizen may make reasonable inquiry of persons coming under his observation or brought to his knowledge under circumstances which reasonably suggest that a crime has been or is about to be committed.
4. The mere accosting of a person by a peace officer or private citizen under such circumstances, and in the absence of any reasonable apprehension of danger, will not justify the person accosted in shooting such officer or citizen, and if he does shoot and kill such officer or citizen he is guilty of murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances.
5. Held, the evidence fully sustains the judgment.
Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Harry L. S. Halley, Judge.
James R. Hargus was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. M Hill, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and and Jess L. Pullen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Tulsa county of murder and his punishment fixed at death.
The homicide which forms the basis of this charge occurred in this manner: Defendant, who had formerly been convicted on a federal charge in Texas, came to Tulsa and at about 11:30 at night parked his car near a drug store and went into it and made some small purchase, then went away for a few minutes and returned and made inquiry, and so acted that the employees feared a holdup. The manager sent a messenger boy by the back door to phone the police. Defendant left the drug store and went to his car parked a short distance down the street, and about this time two police officers, W. L. Martin and L. B. Mitchell, the deceased, in a police car, came to the drug store, parked, and walked down the street to where defendant was getting in his car. One of them called to him to wait a minute, and they walked up to the car and defendant said in substance: "you had better get away from here or I will kill you." As Martin came up to the car, defendant kicked open the car door violently into Martin's face, striking him on the nose and in the eye, and as Martin fell back from this blow defendant shot him in the region of the stomach, the bullet passing through his body. Defendant then shot Mitchell, inflicting two wounds which caused his death in a few seconds. Martin, after he was shot, immediately opened fire, as also did Mitchell. Defendant received two serious wounds which disabled him and he was detained by Martin until other officers arrived at the scene. Defendant was taken to police station, and there made a statement in substance that "he was so hot that he couldn't afford to be taken alive"; further saying he was under indictment in Texas. The following morning he talked with a newspaper reporter, who testified to the following conversation:
Dee Southern, a witness for the state, saw the homicide from where he stood on a porch about 20 feet away. He testified:
"Q. All right, now, you say the two police officers got down to the car; now did you see what happened after they got down to the car? A. Well, the only thing I saw them, both went up on the same side of the car-
Q. Which side of the car did they go up on? A. The left-hand side of the car; the car was facing east on Latimer and they both walked up on the same side of the car and the next thing I noticed, one of them ran behind the car and said 'I am shot,' and he grabbed his side. * * *
Q. All right now, after the officer said he had been shot what happened? A. Well, I yelled for the officers to get around the corner of my porch; it is a concrete porch-it was a concrete porch, so about that time the other officers, they started back up the street, both officers were coming back up the street and he backed up behind the car, pulled his gun and started shooting.
Q. Do you know which officer that was? A. It was the one that was killed."
Defendant in his own behalf, testified as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Harris
...States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 465, 52 S.Ct. 420, 423, 76 L.Ed. 877, 883 are invalid. However, as stated in Hargus v. State, 58 Okl.Cr. 301, 302, 54 P.2d 211, 212, quoted with approval in State v. Chronister (Okl. Cr.) 353 P.2d 'For the purpose of preserving the peace and to prevent cri......
-
Methvin v. State
...the case the same does not show any foundation for the defense by reason of fear, even if it could have availed. In the case of Hargus v. State, 54 P.2d 211, 212, court held: "For the purpose of preserving the peace and to prevent crime, a peace officer or private citizen may make reasonabl......
-
Camp v. State
... ... search of the automobile of the defendant's wife and as ... to the chickens found therein, over the objection of the ... defendant, as the same was an unlawful search and seizure in ... violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant ... It is ... stated in Hargus v. State, 58 Okl.Cr. 301, 54 P.2d ... 211, 212: "For the purpose of preserving the peace and ... to prevent crime, a peace officer or private citizen may make ... reasonable inquiry of persons coming under his observation or ... brought to his knowledge under circumstances which reasonably ... ...
- Brown v. State