Legere v. State

• Decision Date: 05 December 1903
• Parties: LEGERE v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

77 S.W. 1059

111 Tenn. 368

LEGERE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 5, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hancock County.

F. M Legere was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Reversed.

H. T Coleman, R. L. Davis, L. M. Jarvis, C. W. Margraves, and J A. Susong, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

BEARD C.J.

The plaintiff in error was jointly indicted with one Perry Meyers for the killing of John Davis and Grant Seals on the evening of the 7th of June, 1902. Subsequently Meyers asked a severance, which was granted him by the court. About the same time the state entered a nolle prosequi as to the killing of Grant Seals, and then placed the plaintiff in error on trial alone for the homicide of John Davis, the result of which was his conviction of murder in the first degree. Motion for a new trial having been overruled, the case has been appealed to this court, and many errors are assigned upon the action of the circuit judge.

The verdict in the case rests largely upon the testimony of Perry Meyers, who was used by the state as a witness. An examination of the record satisfies us, if not essential to sustain the theory of the state, that at least this testimony was very important to it. This being so, it was proper, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, while the state had the full benefit of it, under an application of the rules of law yet the plaintiff in error should be safeguarded so that undue weight be not given to it. Immediately after the killing of Davis and of Seals, the record discloses that both Legere and Meyers were arrested upon a warrant charging them with the murder of these men. At the coroner's inquest held the day following the arrest, Meyers testified he had been with Legere and the deceased during the day of the killing, but that neither he nor Legere had anything to do with it. Subsequently, upon the preliminary examination before a magistrate, he was examined, and again, under oath, reiterated the statement as to the innocence of himself and of Legere of the crime charged against them. On both occasions he gave a detailed account of what occurred while in company with the murdered men, and of the separation of Legere and himself from them while they were still alive, and of their acts and movements during the evening and night following this separation. As a result of this preliminary examination, both these parties were held to answer the charge of murder at the next term of the circuit court of Hancock county, at which time the joint indictment was found against them. After this, and before the trial took place, Meyers was in some way released from jail, where he had been for some months confined upon this charge. Soon after his release, negotiations were entered upon by his father and himself with the prosecutor, which resulted in an agreement that, in consideration of his turning state's evidence against Legere, as far as he (prosecutor) could control the matter, Meyers should be relieved of any further prosecution for this offense; and at the same time a bond was executed to the father, in the penalty of $1,000, by the prosecutor and a surety, in which they undertook to prevent all further criminal procedure looking to the conviction of the son. Thus assured, Meyers became a witness for the state, and on the trial of the case testified that Legere killed Davis and Seals about dusk on the evening of the 7th of June, 1902, using his own gun for the purpose of shooting Seals, and that he then violently took from the witness a Smith & Wesson revolver, with which he shot Davis to death, and, turning, finished Seals, who was still alive. He further swore that the testimony which he had given under oath at the coroner's inquest and the preliminary examination as to the innocence of Legere was given under duress; that, immediately following the homicide, Legere had extorted from him a promise to testify as he did, under a threat that he would kill him if he did otherwise. For the purpose of corroborating this testimony as to the killing by Legere, the state, over the objection of the counsel for Legere, was permitted to show by the father and by the sister of the witness that after his release from incarceration, and evidently at or about the time he was negotiating for relief from prosecution, he gave to them practically the same account as to the killing by Legere of these parties as was detailed by him on the witness stand. The action of the court in admitting this corroborative testimony has been made a ground for the first assignment of error in this court. That there was error in this, we have no doubt. The general rule is, where evidence of contradictory statements is offered to impeach the credit of a witness, testimony that on former occasions he made statements consistent with those made by him on the witness stand is inadmissible. This seems to be the rule in England at this time. The courts in America have grafted certain exceptions upon this rule, and so fixed are they that it may be considered now that of themselves they constitute an independent rule. And so, it may be said, it is now established in this country that where it is charged the testimony of the witness is a recent fabrication, and is the result of some relation to the party or cause, or of some motive of personal interest, it may be supported by showing he had made a similar statement before that relation or motive existed. However little support such testimony may give to the impeached witness, yet it has been held to be competent upon the ground that the consistent statement had been made at a time that there was little, if any, temptation to speak an untruth with regard to the matter afterwards brought into controversy. The rule embracing these exceptional cases has been frequently recognized in this state; but in no case, so far as we have been able to discover, has the...