Hinsley v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 11 November 1908 |
| Parties | HINSLEY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
A new trial will not be granted for insufficiency of the evidence or where the evidence is conflicting, or because the verdict is contrary to the evidence. These questions being within the discretion of the trial court, its decision will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it appears that the trial court abused its discretion touching these matters.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3067-3071; Dec. Dig. § 1156. [*]]
To warrant or sustain a conviction for crime, there must be evidence sufficient to prove that the offense was committed and also to inculpate the defendant in the commission thereof.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159. [*]]
Upon the overruling of a motion for a new trial by the trial court upon the ground that there is no evidence to support the verdict, when the overruling of such motion was properly excepted to and preserved in the record, and is made the basis of an assignment of error, it is the duty of the appellate court to review the evidence; and, if the record discloses that there is no evidence to support the verdict, a new trial should be granted.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159. [*]]
Error from the United States Court for the Central District of the Indian Territory; before Justice Thomas C. Humphry.
Arthur Hinsley was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Appellant, Arthur Hinsley, was indicted in the United States court for the Central district, Indian Territory, sitting at Durant, which indictment was duly returned by the grand jury and filed in said court on the 15th day of November, 1905, wherein said appellant was charged with having on the 6th day of November, 1905, within said district, committed the crime of murder, in the killing of Clarence Schwartz. On the 17th day of November, 1905, the appellant was duly arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty, and upon his motion this cause was continued to the next term of said court. On February 28, 1906, he was found guilty of the crime of manslaughter, and on the same day filed in open court his motion for a new trial, which motion was by the court on the 3d day of March, 1906, overruled; and the court sentenced appellant to imprisonment in the training school for boys at Booneville, in the state of Missouri, for the term of two years. A writ of error was duly allowed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory, sitting at South McAlester, and this cause was pending in said Court of Appeals at the time of the organization of the state of Oklahoma, and was duly removed to the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma by virtue of the terms and provisions of the enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, and was, by the Supreme Court of this state, in pursuance of an act of the legislative assembly of the state of Oklahoma, entitled "An act creating a Criminal Court of Appeals and defining the jurisdiction of said court," approved May 18, 1908 (Laws 1907-08, p. 291, c. 28), transferred to this court.
The appellant, Arthur Hinsley, a boy of about 13 years, the deceased, Clarence Schwartz, a boy of 12 years, and appellant's brother, McKinley Hinsley, a boy of 10 years, were schoolmates, playmates, and friends, living near each other in the town of Caddo, Ind. T., for a considerable length of time before the killing occurred. These boys were in the habit of accompanying each other to and from school, and on hunting expeditions. On the morning of the day that the killing occurred the appellant and deceased were on their way to the public school in said town, and on their way planned a hunting trip, to take place after school of that day. They went from school together at noon as usual, and during the noon hour deceased called at the home of appellant, and invited him to go to a hardware store, where they purchased a box of loaded shells (cartridges), and also stopped at a drug store near by and bought a tablet, taking the shells to the home of appellant and returning to school together in the afternoon. After school they went to the home of deceased, where the deceased remained to do some chores for the evening, while the appellant went to his home nearby. After waiting some time for the deceased, appellant, with his little brother, McKinley, started to the hunting ground, stopping for a short time at the National Bank corner in Caddo. In the meantime deceased had called at the home of appellant, but not finding him there he proceeded downtown to join appellant for the hunt agreed upon. The three boys met at said bank corner, and started for the hunting ground in Ainsworth's pasture. Soon after starting they met another playmate, named Edmond Franklin, whom appellant invited to join them on the hunt, but he did not go. When they reached the tank in said pasture, they amused themselves for a time shooting birds. Leaving the pasture for home, about sundown, and when they reached a point near the top of a hill on their way home, a dog which they had with them acted in a manner to indicate that he was about to locate a rabbit, and appellant, observing the dog's conduct, called to the deceased and appellant's little brother to scatter out, that the dog would likely "jump a rabbit." At this time appellant, who had the only gun in the party, raised his gun to prepare to shoot the rabbit, and his thumb slipped off the hammer and the gun was discharged, killing Clarence Schwartz, who stood a short distance from where appellant's brother, McKinley, stood at the time the gun was discharged. The gun was loaded with shot, the load taking effect in the left side of deceased, injuring his left arm to some extent, and killing him instantly. Appellant and his brother, after the discharge of the gun, went to the side of the deceased and found him fatally wounded, and soon thereafter left him and started for home, going as far as the pasture gate, stayed there a short time and went back to the deceased, and, leaving him a second time, went to their home. Appellant was sick all night after the killing, and was too ill to go to school the next morning. The boys did not report the killing to their parents, but, on the contrary, both denied knowing anything about it, and continued to deny all knowledge of the same until the second day after the killing, when both appellant and his brother, McKinley, confessed their knowledge of the killing, and claimed that it was accidental, explaining the accident in detail. The boys made their confessions to Town Marshal Braudrick, separate from one another, and at different places, but their explanations of the killing were identical, and were in strict accordance with their testimony at the trial. About 1 o'clock of the day following the killing deceased's father, in search of his son, called at the home of appellant, but, he being at school, in company with the father of appellant, they went to the schoolhouse, where they found him, and he again denied all knowledge of the killing, but stated that he left deceased in the pasture with some other boys, who had a target gun. Upon being invited to go to the pasture with them, the three together proceeded to the pasture in question, and, reaching the pasture, pointed out a spot some distance from where the body was found as the place where he had left deceased. Others joined in the search for deceased, including two women of the neighborhood, who soon after the searching party reached the pasture found the body lying on the hillside, at the place where he was killed. An examination of the body revealed the fatal gunshot wound in the left side, and some abrasions of the skin on the left arm, and also found a circular abrasion of the skin about the size of a dime on his left hand. Appellant, continuing to deny all knowledge of the killing, was taken to the city jail or calaboose, together with his brother, McKinley, Edmond Franklin, Avon Franklin, and Roy Fuller, where they remained all night. The next morning all the boys, except appellant, were released from the prison, he remaining alone in prison from 9 o'clock until 11 o'clock in the morning, when he confessed his knowledge of the killing as aforesaid.
Appellant filed his motion for a new trial in due time in the court below, asking for a new trial for the reasons: (1) That the verdict of the jury finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter, as charged in the indictment, is not supported by the evidence. (2) That the verdict of the jury finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter, as charged in the indictment, is contrary to the evidence. (3) That the verdict of the jury finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter, as charged in the indictment, is contrary to law. (4) That the court committed error in instructing the jury in this case on the law and theory of manslaughter. (5) That the court erred in instructing the jury as to the law of manslaughter, and that the said instructions do not correctly state the law of manslaughter, and that such error was prejudicial to the defendant. (6) The court erred in refusing the following instruction requested by the defendant: "The government having failed to show by competent testimony affirmatively that the defendant was capable of discerning good from evil you are instructed to acquit the defendant." (7) The court erred in permitting the testimony of Ernest Bagwell, a witness for the government, to go to the jury over the objection of the defendant. (8) That the entire instruction of the court was erroneous and prejudicial to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial