Matthews v. State
| Decision Date | 30 April 1882 |
| Citation | 77 Tenn. 128 |
| Parties | Sandy Matthews v. The State. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM SHELBY.
Appeal in error from the Criminal Court of Shelby County. L. B. HORRIGAN, J.
J. T. MOSS for Matthews.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEA for the State.
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the criminal court of Shelby county, of murder in the first degree and sentenced to be hanged, and has appealed to this court.
If the testimony of Bettie Hicks be true, it was a most atrocious murder. She testifies that deceased was sitting near the door of prisoner's house, in friendly conversation with him, when the prisoner struck him with an axe on the head, and repeated the blow after deceased had fallen; that he then dragged him around by the kitchen chimney and severed his head from his body; that several hours later, about dusk the prisoner compelled the witness to assist in taking the body about two hundred yards from the house, where he buried it; finding that the hole he had dug was not large enough to receive the body, he cut off the arms and legs and pressed these mangled and dissevered remains into the hole and covered them with an old quilt and dirt. This is, in substance, her account of the tragedy, which occurred in October, 1881. She states the prisoner, who is her step-father, threatened to kill her if she told, and kept constant watch over her to prevent her leaving home or having an opportunity to communicate with others. But that, finally, about three months after the killing, being relieved from his control, she did communicate the facts to others, and search being made the body was found in the mutilated condition described by her, and identified.
Several errors are assigned as grounds for reversal of the judgment. First, it is alleged that the prisoner was absent when two of the jurors were elected. It appears that ten jurors had been elected and the panel was exhausted; thereupon, the judge ordered other jurors to be summoned, and prisoner was removed from within the bar to the prisoner's dock within the court room,, to await the sheriff's return of the additional panel of jurors. While the prisoner was in the dock, two jurors who had failed to appear on the call of the first panel came into the court room, and were passed by the attorney-general and accepted by defendant's counsel. During this time the prisoner, as stated by affidavit of one of his counsel, was handcuffed and in his dock, a distance of forty or fifty feet from the jury box, but took his seat by his counsel about the time the last of the two jurors was accepted by his counsel.
The record shows that this dock or prisoner's bench is about thirty feet from the judge's stand, and in full view of the whole court and jury, and defendant was in position to see and hear all that was done, and no objection made by defendant's counsel, they having exhausted nineteen challenges. We think the prisoner was in fact and in contemplation of law, present at this proceeding, and had the opportunity to have interposed objection to either juror, if he had desired to do so.
A prisoner should not, during his trial, be manacled or handcuffed; but should be left free from shackles, unless some such restraint should be necessary to prevent escape. In this case the proceedings had been temporarily suspended, to allow the sheriff time to summon additional jurors, and he removed the prisoner to the dock in the rear of the court room, and there handcuffed him, no doubt to prevent escape. While there, the two jurors appeared who had failed to answer upon the first call, and were passed by the attorney-general and accepted by prisoner's counsel, before he had returned to the side of his counsel--the last one being accepted by them about the time the prisoner seated himself by his counsel--and half an hour before the jury were sworn, affording ample time for objection, and all that occurred being at the time within the view and hearing of the prisoner. It was only intended he should be fettered during the suspension of proceedings, in making up the jury. But by inadvertence the jurors were accepted by his counsel before he took his seat beside them. This is not in conflict with the humane spirit of the law that requires a prisoner to be unfettered during his trial.
It is also objected that the jury were separated in returning from their room in the court house to the court room...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Moore
...State, 40 Ala.App. 309, 312-313 & n.1, 113 So.2d 905, cert. denied, 269 Ala. 698, 113 So.2d 912 (1959), and cases cited; Matthews v. State, 77 Tenn. 128, 130-131 (1882); Annots., 5 A.L.R.3d 1360, 1389-1390 (1966), 23 A.L.R. 1382, 1391-1393 (1923). In Commonwealth v. Boyd, 246 Pa. 529, 534, ......
-
Rivera v. State
...be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and unless that discretion is abused, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Matthews v. State, 77 Tenn. 128 (1882); Poe v. State, 78 Tenn. 673, 677 'In the Mattews case it was said a prisoner '* * * should not, during his trial, be manacled o......
-
State ex rel. Hathaway v. Henderson
...or handcuffed; but should be left free from shackles unless some such restraint should be necessary to prevent escape. Matthews v. State, 77 Tenn. 128 (1882). Whether or not a prisoner is handcuffed must be left to the discretion of the trial judge. Unless that discretion is abused, it will......
-
State ex rel. Hall v. Meadows
...be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and unless that discretion is abused, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Matthews v. State, 77 Tenn. 128 (1882); Poe v. State, 78 Tenn. 673, 677 In the Matthews case it was said a prisoner '* * * should not, during his trial, be manacled o......