Riley v. State

Decision Date12 July 1935
Docket NumberA-8859.
Citation49 P.2d 813,57 Okla.Crim. 313
PartiesRILEY v. STATE.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1935.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Evidence held sufficient to sustain the judgment.

2. Evidence which tends to throw some light on the question of the guilt of an accused, and which has some logical connection with the crime charged, is not inadmissible because it may tend to prove him guilty of some other crime.

3. Testimony that an accused attempted to manufacture false evidence, to suborn perjury, or to purchase a witness is an implied admission of guilt, and is competent and admissible against him on his trial.

4. In order to constitute a violation of section 3068, Okl. St 1931, which forbids a comment on the failure of an accused to testify in his own behalf, the argument complained of must amount to a direct or indirect comment on such failure. Held, the argument here complained of does not constitute a comment on the failure of accused to testify.

Appeal from District Court, Pittsburg County; Harve L. Melton Judge.

Bun Riley was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

W. A Lackey and Tom G. Haile, both of McAlester, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Frank Watson, Asst. Co. Atty., of McAlester, for the State.

EDWARDS Judge.

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted of murder in the district court of Pittsburg county and his punishment fixed at death. In the latter part of June, 1934, three young men, Hobart Watkins, Homer Beasley, and Bill Gann were shot and killed near the little town of Canadian. The three were killed in the same manner; that is, by a single discharge of a shotgun. In each case the shot took effect in the side or back part of the head, and in each case death was instantaneous. The defendant and these young men had grown up and had gone to school together. All were approximately of the age of 25 years, and were close companions. After Watkins, Beasley and Gann were missing for a day or so, search was instituted and the bodies were found in the timber away from any road. The body of Beasley was first found; he evidently had been killed while sitting down, as the shot ranged downward. The body of Watkins was about 100 yards from that of Beasley. Evidently he had been standing up when killed, as the shot ranged straight through the head. About 200 yards away the body of Bill Gann was found, and from the range of the wound he had evidently been lying down when shot. The physical facts indicated that Beasley and Watkins had been killed probably a day before Gann was killed. Watkins had a .38 caliber pistol in his pocket; the other two were unarmed. Defendant was tried for the murder of Gann, but from the relations of the parties, the statements and confessions and the surrounding circumstances, evidence of the death of the three was admitted in evidence. After the finding of the bodies an information was filed June 30th, charging defendant with the murder of Gann. He was arraigned before a magistrate on July 5th, pleaded not guilty, and a preliminary was set for July 13th. On July 8th, he made a written confession admitting the killing of the three and giving as his reason that he and the three had been mixed up in many crimes, and that they had tried to put the blame on him. He stated the circumstances of how he took Beasley and Watkins into the woods on Friday and killed them, and that he enticed Gann into the woods on Saturday and killed him. On July 13th, defendant made another confession. In this he stated, in substance, that his part in the killing was forced on him; that two men who lived in Canadian and whose names he refused to give, met him and Watkins near the place where the body of Watkins was found; that they took defendant's gun and they then marched Watkins into the woods and he heard the shot that killed him; that later the two men forced Beasley to go into the woods and he heard the shot that killed him; that defendant met Gann the next morning and sent him into the woods where he was killed; that defendant did not go with him for the reason he feared he would also be killed. On September 22d, defendant made a third confession. In this latter confession defendant stated that one Jones Estes and Joe Wheeler took his gun; that Estes killed Watkins, and Wheeler killed Beasley; and that defendant procured Gann to go to a fixed place where he was killed by Estes and Wheeler; and that under compulsion from Estes and Wheeler defendant wrote a certain card which had been found near the body of Bill Gann, mentioning the killing of Watkins, Beasley, and Gann. While confined in the jail previous to his trial, defendant wrote a note to one Raymond England, a prisoner in the jail, suggesting that England write a note purporting to be from one Baker, admitting that Baker did the killing. He furnished England a form for that purpose. He requested that England then kill Baker, so it would appear Baker had committed suicide. This note was intercepted by the jailer. A part of it reads: "Say, England, do you remember what we was talking about the other day in regards to Baker. this is a lot to ask of a friend but if you will do this for me it will keep my ass frome burning and I can do a hole lot for you and will do anything I am bigger nuff to do-you know what I mean dont you its about that note admiting he done everything by his self Thank it over and let me no Soon Please, Bun. Say Granite if you will do that for me i will get you out on bond are i will buy you a pair of shoes and put some blades in them and mail them to you and if you want anybody bumped off thats against you i will do that for you i will show you what a friend is. Baker is going out Monday so you could do it to nite you could get that knife and put it to him and i can fix up a note and we will both be out in a week so let me know so I can fix up that note. * * * Granite, do that for me and i will do anything you want me to do * * * have him to rite his mothers name and adress. and you rite that note over just like i rote it because they no my hand riting and rite it just like he rites so we will be in the clear. * * * I mean Will you get rid of Baker for me you can hang him are any way to get rid of him if you Will it will mean a lot to me so let me know and I will fix up a note a clear my self and i will fix you up and get you out some way please let me know what you thank about it. * * *" This was competent. Bruner v. United States, 1 Okl. Cr. 205, 96 P. 597; Ryal v. State, 16 Okl. Cr. 266, 182 P. 253; Dickey v. State, 86 Miss. 525, 38 So. 776. Defendant did not take the stand, but introduced some evidence tending to prove alibi.

Defendant first argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. Upon this point the argument is made that the conviction rests on the confessions made by defendant, and the letter written to England, and a card found near the body of Gann; that the confessions cannot be true. There is ample proof of the corpus delicti and of defendant's connection with the killing; there can be no reasonable doubt but that defendant premeditatedly and deliberately killed Gann; that as a part of the same plan and with the same motive he also killed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Doser v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • February 9, 1949
    ... ... Riley v ... State, 57 Okl.Cr. 313, 49 P.2d 813; Clark v. State, ... supra; Pressley v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 436, 112 P.2d ... 809; Brockman v. State, supra. In State v. Rule, supra, when ... evidence is offered of other crimes other than the one ... charged in the information as an exception to the ... ...
  • Pinnick v. State, F-79-507
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 19, 1980
    ...not err in that the attempt to bribe a witness is tantamount to an admission of guilt and admissible in evidence. See Riley v. State, 57 Okl.Cr. 313, 49 P.2d 813 (1935); Bradley v. State, Okl.Cr., 561 P.2d 548 (1977); State v. Young, 1 Or.App. 562, 463 P.2d 374 In conclusion we observe the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT