McMaster v. State

• Decision Date: 27 April 1903
• Citation: 34 So. 156,82 Miss. 459
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: SAMUEL MACKMASTERS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

34 So. 156

82 Miss. 459

SAMUEL MACKMASTERS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 27, 1903

FROM the circuit court of Tishomingo county. HON. EUGENE O. SYKES Judge.

Mackmasters appellant, was indicted for the murder of his own father Uriah Mackmasters. On his first trial he was convicted of manslaughter and appealed to the supreme court, where the conviction was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. See Mackmasters v. State, 81 Miss. 374.

A second trial was had and defendant again convicted of manslaughter, and he again appealed (this appeal) to the supreme court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

Candler & Sawyer, for appellant.

It is clear that the confession and its subsequent repetitions were superinduced by the reply of the deputy sheriff, Wallace Harvey, to the defendant when he asked him, "What would they do with a man for killing his daddy in self-defense?" A. "They will put you in the penitentiary for five or six years, and I will help you out."

J. N. Flowers, assistant attorney general, for appellee.

The confession of the appellant was before this court on the former appeal and the admission of proof of it was not declared to be error.

This is the same confession. It is freer from doubt, as now presented by several witnesses, than it was when made alone to Harvey.

Argued orally by E. S. Candler, Jr., for appellant.

OPINION

PRICE, J.

Appellant was indicted for the murder of his father by the grand jury of Tishomingo county, convicted of manslaughter, and upon a former appeal to this court, 81 Miss. 374, 33 So. 2, the case was reversed and remanded. At the January term, 1903, of the circuit court, he was put upon trial for manslaughter, convicted, and sentenced for a term of twenty years in the state penitentiary. The state, over defendant's objection, introduced in evidence confessions made by the defendant while in the county jail, and before his trial. The question presented by this appeal is, were the confessions free and voluntary, under the law? The same point was raised when this case was before this court on the former appeal, but upon the first trial the defendant was introduced and testified, and, in substance, his testimony seems not to have been in serious conflict with the alleged confessions; but upon the record as now presented, the defendant was not a witness, and whether the confessions were free and voluntary now becomes one of material importance.

The appellant, his father, and his brothers were on bad terms--had carried guns and other weapons for each other. For a long while there had been serious trouble and some shooting between members of the family. Deceased was killed on Sunday night, October 27, 1901, within about four hundred yards of his own residence, and within about one hundred yards of the appellant's residence. When suspicion began to rest on appellant, he grew uneasy, and feared a mob from his own family; and while in jail, in care of the deputy sheriff Wallace Harvey, at every opportunity he begged to be protected from the mob. His fears seemed not to be based upon the enormity of his crime, but upon the mere fact that one should ever be compelled to take the life of his father under any circumstances. There is no substantial evidence, aside from the confessions, to connect appellant with the killing. Wallace Harvey was the deputy sheriff, and attended the...