Hooker v. State

• Decision Date: 15 April 1905
• Citation: 86 S.W. 846,75 Ark. 67
• Parties: HOOKER v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

86 S.W. 846

75 Ark. 67

HOOKER v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 15, 1905

Appeal from Garland Circuit Court, ALEXANDER M. DUFFIE, Judge.

Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

A. J Murphy, for appellant.

The confessions of a prisoner out of court and in the custody of officers are a doubtful species of evidence, and should be received with great caution. 1 Greenleaf, Ev. § 214; 34 Ark. 649; Sackett, Inst. Jur. 642. The argument of counsel and cross-examination of appellant was prejudicial. 62 Ark 126; 61 Ark. 130; 156 U.S. 361; 58 Ark. 473; 75 Ind. 220; 46 L. R. A. 641; 69 Ark. 657.

Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee.

Section 2321 of Kirby's Digest is directory. 53 Ark. 67. The confession of appellant was properly admitted. 14 Ark. 562; 35 Ark. 35; 19 Ark. 156; 34 Ark. 653. The instructions of the court were proper. 25 Ark. 408; 35 Ark. 585; 36 Ark. 135; 34 Ark. 649; 20 Ark. 619.

OPINION

HILL, C. J.

Houston Hooker was the negro porter on one of the "Valley trains" under charge of Conductor Atwood, and had served under him in that capacity for a long time. On the 25th of last October, while passing through Saline County, Hooker entered the negro coach where Atwood was collecting fares, and shot him to death. His testimony is to the effect that, in pursuance of threats previously made, Atwood attacked him and struck him a heavy blow, and in the encounter he (Hooker) fired the fatal shots. His testimony is wholly without corroboration, and in the face of the testimony of the eyewitnesses and of statements made by Hooker immediately following the tragedy and confessions subsequently made to the officers.

The eyewitnesses were all negroes, and, with the exception of one of them, did not see the beginning of the encounter, as it occurred in the rear of the coach. The one who saw the beginning says that Hooker approached Atwood, and grabbed him by the coat, and fired without a word having passed, and that then they tussled. Another witness heard the shot, and, turning, saw Hooker holding Atwood in the position described by the first witness. Another witness on hearing the shot looked and saw Atwood grab Hooker and the tussle began. Others looked after the first shot, and saw them clinched and tussling, presumably over the pistol, and saw the subsequent shots. All agree that the shot was the first intimation of any trouble between them. Hooker immediately after leaving the coach began making statements, some to the effect that he had killed his best friend, others to the effect that Atwood had called him opprobrious names, and had maltreated him, and he could stand it no longer. To a negro woman he said he was forced to do what he did as Atwood had been whipping him, "and he could not stand for it." Various statements of like tenor were made to others. The evidence showed Hooker locked the door in the white coach, and he afterwards stated that was to keep the white people from getting to him "until he finished the job." Immediately after the shooting he began expressing fears of being lynched, and frequently referred to negroes being mobbed for killing white people. In one of these statements he told of spending some months up North, and of Atwood getting his leave of absence extended and writing him nice letters while he was in New York. In this connection he stated that negroes were not treated in the North like they were here, and told of his grievance against Atwood for slapping him. It is apparent from the entire statements of Hooker that Atwood was kind to him and a good friend to him, but that he punished him for his mistakes and neglectful ways by slapping him. Atwood was a much larger and more powerful man than Hooker.

In the cross-examination of Hooker the State attempted to prove that he had made statements to the effect that while up North he had white men, working under him, and he would eat at the table with them. Hooker denied such statements, and said "I hope the good people of Arkansas won't get that in their heads, that that trip would spoil a nigger of my age." The defendant's counsel objected to this line of cross-examination, and the State sought to sustain it upon the ground that it would furnish a motive for the crime. The court ruled it out upon the ground that, if the State relied upon such evidence as a motive, it should have offered it in the first instance, and not at that stage of the trial. Nothing further appears in the record as to the race question until the closing argument of the special counsel for the State, when this occurred: "W. H. Martin, Esquire, in his closing argument, stated that Mr. A. J. Murphy, one of the defendant's attorneys, had criticised everything and everybody connected with the trial; that he had even criticised the court for calling a special term to try the defendant; that he had been allowed great latitude by the court, and had gone to great length in making statements not in the record; that Mr. Murphy had claimed that the State had injected racial prejudice into the case, when such was not the fact. 'Why, gentlemen,' said Mr. Martin, 'the State has not injected racial prejudice in the case. We have not attempted to do so. Mr. Murphy has, at every stage of the proceedings, injected racial questions into the case. The State has not, and has no desire to inject racial questions into the case. The State wants the defendant to have a fair and...