Smith v. State
Decision Date | 12 October 1949 |
Docket Number | A-11084. |
Citation | 210 P.2d 675,90 Okla.Crim. 98 |
Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
David Smith was convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County Eben L. Taylor, J., of murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and he appealed.
The Criminal Court of Appeals, Brett, J., affirmed the judgment and held that defendant's requested instruction on manslaughter in second degree was properly refused in absence of evidence to support it.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Instructions to jury should conform to charge in information defense interposed, and testimony in case.
2. It is not error for the court to refuse to give a requested instruction in the absence of any substantial evidence to support the giving of the same.
Harold McArthur, Tulsa, attorney for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., attorneys for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error David Smith, defendant below, was charged by information with the crime of the murder of Gladys Lanier in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on October 6, 1947. He was tried by a jury in the district court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary to life imprisonment.
This appeal from the judgment and sentence therein imposed involves only one contention, that the trial court erred in its refusal to give the defendant's requested instructions 1, 2 and 3 on manslaughter in the second degree. In considering this contention it is only necessary to call attention to the fact that the court instructed the jury on murder and accidental killing. Therefore, in resolving this issue it is necessary that we consider the evidence in order to determine whether or not the court would have been justified in giving an instruction on second degree manslaughter, which is defined by Title 21 O.S.1941 § 716, as follows: 'Every killing of one human being by the act, * * * of another, which, under the provisions of this chapter, is not murder, nor manslaughter in the first degree, nor excusable nor justifiable homicide, is manslaughter in the second degree.' Briefly, the state's theory supported by proof discloses that the defendant, a Negro married man, and Gladys Lanier, the victim, a Negro woman separated from her husband but undivorced, had kept company for some time. However, shortly prior to the killing Gladys Lanier was trying to break off her relations with the defendant, and had started going with George Cheatham, a single man. She was going with Cheatham what might be termed steady. The record shows that notwithstanding, David Smith made it a point to see them when they were out together. On the night of October 5 before the killing in the early morning of the 6th of October, 1947, Gladys was out with Cheatham until near midnight. In the interim from the time until they left until their return the defendant came to Gladys Lanier's home and inquired for her and was told by her mother that she was not there. He was not satisfied and pushed into the house and peeked around trying to find her, and then said 'I guess I will just jog along back'. Whereupon, he left. Thereafter, he made repeated telephone calls in an endeavor to contact Gladys Lanier. Finally, he parked himself near the Lanier home on the back side of the automobile of a friend where he could 'gawk' through the window, and waited for the victim to return to her home. George Cheatham saw him by the light of the headlight of the automobile in which he was riding as he turned the corner. The record shows that the defendant said to his friend when the car in which Gladys and George were riding passed mother admonished her not to go to the door but she did anyway and opened it. The defendant stepped in and spoke so fast, so angrily and in such 'garbled talk' Mrs. Givens could not understand what he said to Gladys, a shot rang out, Gladys screamed 'Oh, mama', and fell to the floor mortally wounded, shot in the midportion of the chest, dying immediately. The defendant slammed the door shut and fled. A little later he returned and shook the door again. Mrs. Givens, the victim's mother, asked who it was and the defendant said 'George'. She said she told him 'No, it wasn't George Cheatham but David Smith' and he could not come in. This in substance was the state's case predicated upon the theory that the victim's death constituted murder committed in the heat of jealous rage.
The defendant offered evidence to establish that there was no animosity toward the victime in the least. He attempted to establish that the killing of Gladys Lanier was purely accidental and unintentional.
The record is replete with evidence that that was the sole and only theory of the defense. The cross examination of Officer Alexander who interrogated the defendant immediately after the killing discloses that the defense was to be accidental death. The defendant testified in his own behalf that he called Gladys Lanier immediately preceding the killing and arranged with her to go out with him. He said it was no uncommon thing for them to go out together at that time of night in the early morning.
His positive testimony establishing the accidental theory reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial