Sneed v. Territory
| Decision Date | 24 February 1906 |
| Citation | 86 P. 70,16 Okla. 641,1906 OK 32 |
| Parties | SNEED v. TERRITORY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
On a trial for murder committed in Oklahoma, where the defense is justifiable homicide, evidence that the defendant told the sheriff in Texas, some time after the homicide, that, if any papers came from Oklahoma for his arrest, to notify him and he would surrender, is not competent, in view of the existing facts in this case.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, §§ 928-936.]
On a trial for murder, where the defense is justifiable homicide evidence offered on behalf of the defendant to prove that the deceased, about dark the evening of the homicide, had had a difficulty with one Charles Christy, which grew out of an invitation by the deceased to drink with him, Christy refusing, thereupon the deceased became angry, threw Christy upon the floor, drew his pistol, attempted to shoot him, but was prevented from so doing by the defendant, is competent for the purpose of showing the disposition of the deceased to become angry with friendly persons upon small or no provcation, and to prove his condition of mind, violent temper, his viciousness on such occasions, and disposition to use a gun; and to exclude such testimony, when offered, is error.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 26, Cent. Dig. Homicide, § 314.]
The knowledge of the defendant, derived from such personal observation, as well as otherwise, of the violent temper of the deceased and his liability to attack persons without cause, is a most important circumstance in determining from the standpoint of the accused the reasonableness of the danger apprehended by him, and from which the defendant might estimate the conduct of the deceased, the character of the attack made upon him, and what he might expect from his assailant, as well as that which he might at the moment deem necessary to guard himself against.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 26, Cent. Dig. Homicide, §§ 155, 156.]
Error from District Court, Comanche County; before Justice F. E. Gillette.
William P. Sneed was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Reversed.
Gilbert & Gilbert, Keys & Hussey, and G. A. Brown, for plaintiff in error.
P. C. Simons, Atty. Gen., and Don C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Territory.
On November 20, 1902, the plaintiff in error, defendant below, was indicted by the grand jury of Comanche county, charged with the murder of James Ferber, on September 6, 1902, was tried and found guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of eight years. A brief summary of the facts is that the defendant was a saloon keeper, conducting a saloon in the town of Texawa. The deceased was an acquaintance of the defendant; the two having been acquainted for several months, having boarded at the same place, the deceased visiting the defendant's place of business frequently, the two going to and from their meals daily in company, and there being apparently more than ordinary friendship existing between them. On the night of the homicide and shortly before, the deceased had been in the defendant's place of business, as was his usual custom, at times, and was more or less under the influence of liquor, although the evidence is somewhat conflicting as to his exact condition. The deceased, during the evening, had displayed a revolver, and had while sitting down snapped it several times in the direction of the feet of a person who was in the room. There is some evidence by one witness to the effect that he loaded his pistol after snapping it. At some time, probably between 12 and 1 o'clock, at night, the deceased suggested to the defendant and others the idea of going to a grocery store near by to procure something to eat. He started out for that purpose, the defendant taking his money from the drawer, and his revolver from the place where it lay, and made the remark that he would take the money, and, if any one should get in while he was gone, they couldn't get more than something to drink, and all went out the front door of the saloon.
Only two, the defendant and the deceased, started for something to eat; the others remaining. They proceeded to the front door of the grocery. Being unable to enter, they started for the rear of the store, which was some little distance from the saloon. Directly after arriving there, several shots were heard; there being no eyewitnesses to the difficulty, other than the defendant and the deceased. The evidence is not quite certain as to the number of shots fired. Some of the witnesses place it at five or six, some more, and possibly some less. Directly after the shooting, the defendant returned to near the saloon, stating that he had had to kill the deceased. One witness testifies that he heard the defendant say that he had killed the "dam son of a bitch." Others testify that he said, in substance, that he had killed his best friend; that he had to do it. Others testify to a somewhat more detailed statement by the defendant, and also that the defendant when he returned from the difficulty had blood upon his head, and that the defendant stated, among other...
To continue reading
Request your trial