Holmes v. State
| Decision Date | 11 December 1911 |
| Parties | HOLMES v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
(a) A general instruction upon the subject of character is all that the court should give in the trial of a criminal case, and even although a defendant may introduce evidence of a previous good character, yet, if the facts and circumstances in the case are such that such evidence could not be of benefit to the defendant, it is not error for the trial court to refuse to instruct upon this subject.
(a) Where it is proven that confessions of the defendant were freely and voluntarily made, they are competent evidence against him.
(b) Even although the court may have erred in admitting evidence of a confession made by a defendant, yet if the defendant takes the witness stand in his own behalf, and testifies to the truthfulness of every material statement contained in said confession so erroneously introduced in evidence, such error in the admission of the confession becomes harmless and is not ground for reversal.
(a) Where the court instructs the jury that, if they convict a defendant of murder, they should assess his punishment at death or imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labor for life, as in their discretion they may see fit, the court should not attempt to define the legal meaning of the word "discretion."
(a) It is only in cases of homicide where the issue of self-defense is presented that it is necessary for the court to instruct the jury that they must view the facts and circumstances in evidence from the standpoint of the defendant as they reasonably appeared to him at the time of the homicide.
(b) It is only when the testimony given by, the defendant presents issues upon which he might be acquitted, or upon which the offense might be reduced to a lower degree, that he is entitled to have the jury instructed upon the hypothesis that such testimony is true.
(a) For facts which did not authorize the court to instruct the jury as to the law of voluntary withdrawal from a conspiracy, see opinion.
(b) For facts which did not raise the issue that the fatal shot had been fired after the termination of a conspiracy, see opinion.
(c) When a conspiracy is entered into to do any unlawful act, all persons who engage therein are responsible for all that is done in pursuance of such conspiracy by any of their co-conspirators until the purpose for which such conspiracy was entered into has been fully accomplished.
(d) The responsibility of co-conspirators is not confined to the accomplishment of the common purpose for which the conspiracy was entered into, but extends to and includes all collateral acts incident to and growing out of the common design.
(e) Where parties enter into a conspiracy for the purpose of committing a robbery and dividing the proceeds of such robbery among themselves, such conspiracy continues and such parties are responsible for the acts of their co-conspirators incident to or growing out of such conspiracy and done in pursuance thereof, until they have divided the proceeds of such robbery.
(f) If several persons set out in concert, whether together or apart, upon a common design which is unlawful, each taking the part assigned to him, some to commit the act, some to watch, and some to prevent surprise or to aid the escape of the immediate actors, if the crime is committed, in the eyes of the law all are guilty as principals.
(g) Where several persons confederate together to commit the crime of robbery, and one of them is armed with a deadly weapon to be used by them in such robbery, and such robbery is in fact attempted or committed, and the party robbed or attempted to be robbed resists and calls for help, and the conspirator so armed with a pistol shoots and kills such person to silence his voice and prevent him from summoning assistance, or for any other purpose incident to such conspiracy, all of such persons so conspiring and confederating together for the purpose of robbery are alike guilty of murder.
(h) Where parties voluntarily act together in the commission of any act which may result in death to another and such death ensues therefrom, all such parties so acting together are as guilty of murder as if they had intended the death of such party.
(i) When the evidence in a case is such that there is no reason to believe that an intelligent and honest jury, having a due regard for their oaths, the law, and the evidence, would arrive at a given conclusion, it is not error for the trial court to decline to give the jury instructions upon the law applicable to such issue.
(j) Before it is necessary for a trial court to instruct the jury upon an issue favorable to a defendant in any case, such issue must involve a conclusion which can be legitimately arrived at from the evidence in the case by an honest and intelligent jury.
(a) Where an indictment or information charges a defendant with murder under the first subdivision of the statute (Snyder's Comp. Laws 1909, § 2268), a conviction can be had, if warranted by the evidence, under and by virtue of the other subdivisions of the statute.
(b) Our statute defining murder was intended to simplify the law upon this subject, and make it plain and bring it within the common understanding of the citizens of the state, and it does not prescribe a rule of pleading, but it establishes a guide to the conduct of the trial prescribing the proof requisite to a conviction.
(a) Where the testimony clearly shows an aggravated case of murder, this court has no right to interfere with the verdict of the jury upon the ground that the death penalty should not have been inflicted.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; W. R. Taylor, Judge.
James Holmes was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
Where the testimony clearly shows an aggravated case of murder, the Criminal Court of Appeals has no right to interfere with the verdict of the jury on the ground that the death penalty should not have been inflicted.
On the 3d day of April, 1911, in the district court of Oklahoma county, the following verdict was returned against appellant On the 24th day of April, 1911, sentence of death was pronounced against the defendant by the court in accordance with said verdict. Appellant appealed. Affirmed.
The first witness for the state was Miss Kate O'Mara. She testified: That on the 8th day of March, 1911, she lived at 214 East Third street in the city of Oklahoma. At about 1:30 o'clock that night she heard some one coming up Third street whistling. This person then began to sing. She wondered who was singing so loudly at that hour of the night, and got up to see. By the time she had got to the window, the singer had passed. Only one person was whistling and singing. Soon after this she heard some shuffling of feet on the sidewalk. That this noise was made by more than one person, and was pretty loud. She next heard a muffled scream. Soon after this she heard one shot. She looked out of the window again, and about one minute after the shot was fired she saw four persons in the street. Two were going west on Third street. One was in the center of the street, and the fourth person ran through her yard between the hydrant and the porch and ran to the alley. That she did not see these persons until about a minute after the shot was fired. That the parties had their heads down and were running, and witness was unable to recognize them. The next morning between 4 and 5 o'clock she saw a man lying out on the sidewalk. There was a large crowd there. There was a great pool of blood where the man was lying that had run down several feet on the pavement. The shot which she heard the night before was in the direction of the place where the man was lying.
H. E. Harris testified: That he lived at 220 East Third street. That on the 9th of March, 1911, about 1 o'clock at night, he heard some one singing, but did not pay any attention to it. That soon after this a noise was started up. That he first thought there were cats around the back yard, but he pretty soon discovered a man's voice or probably two men's voices. He then heard a gun shot. The windows were all down, and he could not distinguish exactly where the noise was. He got up, put on his clothes, and walked out in the back yard, and looked in his barn to see if his horse was all right, and walked around in the alley. He did not see or hear anything or anybody and the lights were out and he went back to bed. He got up about 4:30 o'clock the next morning, saw a man lying dead on the sidewalk, his pants pockets wrong side out. Blood appeared to run from the dead man's head down the street about 30 feet.
E. T Bryan testified: That he resided at 214 East Third street in the city of Oklahoma. That about 1:30 o'clock on the night of the 8th of March he heard a shot, and soon after the shot was fired he heard running. He did not hear the running until two or three minutes after the shot was fired. It was dark, and witness could not see any one. He got up the next morning, and found a man lying dead on the sidewalk. The man was lying between 214 and 216 East Third street. The man was shot in the left side of the head, right through the ear. Charles Bersha testified: That about 4 o'clock on the morning of the 9th of March, 1911, he had occasion to be on East Third street in the 200 block. He saw a man lying dead on the sidewalk. The man had a wound in the left side of his head. Blood...
To continue reading
Request your trial