State v. Sandiford

• Decision Date: 02 May 1921
• Docket Number: 24545
• Citation: 149 La. 933,90 So. 261
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. SANDIFORD

90 So. 261

149 La. 933

STATE v. SANDIFORD

No. 24545

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 2, 1921

On Rehearing, October 31, 1921; On Application for Second Rehearing, November 28, 1921

Appeal from Thirtieth Judicial District Court, Parish of La Salle F. E. Jones, Judge.

Roy Sandiford was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.

Affirmed on rehearing.

Perrin & Perrin and A. D. Flowers, all of Jena, for appellant.

A. V Coco, Atty. Gen., J. B. Thornhill, Dist. Atty., of Columbia (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, S. L. Richey, of Alexandria and C. W. Flowers, of Jena, of counsel), for the State.

O'NIELL, J. MONROE, C. J., PROVOSTY SOMMERVILLE, JJ. DAWKINS, J. takes no part.

OPINION

O'NIELL, J.

Appellant was prosecuted for the murder of one F. L. Sheppard, was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The record contains a number of bills of exception, several of which were reserved to rulings of the district judge refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of previous threats on the part of Sheppard to kill defendant. In offering the evidence, defendant's counsel announced that the main purpose was to corroborate the testimony given by defendant; that is, to prove that Sheppard had made a hostile demonstration as if to take the life of defendant, and that he (defendant) shot Sheppard in self-defense, believing that Sheppard was about to carry out his threats and that his (defendant's) life was therefore in imminent danger.

The reason assigned by the district judge for refusing to admitevidence of the previous threats on the part of the deceased was that, from the testimony already heard on the subject, "there was no doubt in the mind of the court as to who was the aggressor" in the fatal difficulty. The judge also expressed the opinion, in his statement per curiam, that proof of previous threats on the part of the deceased, in a prosecution involving a plea of self-defense, is not admissible or relevant to the question as to which one of the parties was the aggressor, unless the question as to who was the aggressor is a very close or doubtful question.

There is no dispute about the general outlines of the case. Defendant was about 17 years of age and resided with his mother, about 200 yards from the residence of Sheppard, on a country road. There was ill feeling between the two families, because Sheppard's dogs had been annoying defendant's mother's hogs. On the day of the homicide, defendant, who was working at a sawmill, had come home for dinner and was taking a nap. His mother awoke him, telling him that Mr. Sheppard's dogs were again after her hogs. Hearing the dogs barking, he loaded his shotgun with buckshot and went towards Sheppard's house. There he found that the dogs were helping Sheppard's daughter to drive Sheppard's hogs out of Sheppard's cornfield. The boy immediately returned towards his own home and had walked a distance of about 125 yards when he met Sheppard in an automobile. The latter was a rural mail carrier and was returning home from one of his regular trips. Sheppard's 13 year old boy was with him on the front seat, and his 10 year old boy occupied the rear seat of the automobile. The car passed very close by defendant, and, as he stepped aside, he told Sheppard, perhaps sarcastically, to look out or he would run over a good man. The children in the automobile testified that defendant cursed their father when the automobile passed, but defendant denied the statement. It is not disputed that Sheppard stopped his automobile immediately. The car stopped a distance estimated at from 20 to 50 feet beyond the point where it had passed defendant, and Sheppard immediately got out of the car. The boy on the front seat grabbed his father's arm and attempted to prevent his getting out, because, as the boy testified, he had heard defendant curse his father and feared there would be trouble. Defendant testified that, as soon as the car stopped, Sheppard turned towards him and said: "What did you say, you G d s of a b ?" He testified that Sheppard then immediately stepped out of the car, and, advancing toward him, said: "You've got your gun; I'll see if you will use it." That he (defendant) raised his gun and told Sheppard to stop; and that Sheppard then placed his hand on his hip pocket and said: "I'm going to kill you, you little whiteheaded s of a b ." Whereupon, he (defendant) shot Sheppard.

The two boys who had been riding in the car, and two daughters of Sheppard, who had witnessed the homicide from a considerable distance, testified that their father was in the act of getting out of the car, and in fact had one foot yet on the running board, when he was shot. The two daughters of Sheppard also testified that defendant had stopped by the roadside and was sitting on a log when the automobile came in sight, and that he then arose and stood by a tree. But defendant denied that statement. It is not disputed that Sheppard was shot in the thigh and that he must have been facing defendant when the shot was fired. There was no weapon found on the deceased or in the automobile. He did not have on a coat at the time he was shot.

The only question of fact pertaining to the guilt or innocence of the accused, which the jury had to decide, was whether defendant's statement, that Sheppard advanced upon him in such a threatening way as to give him good reason to believe that his life was in imminent danger, was a true or a false statement. The question was simply one of veracity between the defendant and the state's witnesses. To the question thus presented to the jury, proof of previous threats on the part of Sheppard to take defendant's life was surely relevant. In fact, the proof would not have been relevant to any other question because previous threats on the part of the deceased would not, alone, have justified the killing.

The evidence offered by defendant, of the alleged previous threats, consisted of the...