State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 13 January 1904
• Parties: THE STATE OF IOWA v. RICHARD WILLIAMS, Appellant,
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

97 N.W. 992

122 Iowa 115

THE STATE OF IOWA v. RICHARD WILLIAMS, Appellant,

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 13, 1904

Appeal from Mahaska District Court.--HON. A. R. DEWEY, Judge.

DEFENDANT was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree, and his punishment was fixed as death. From the judgment on the verdict defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Woodson & Brown and McCoy & McCoy for appellant.

Chas W. Mullan, Attorney General, Chas. A. Van Vleck, Assistant Attorney General, and James A. Devitt, County Attorney, for the State.

OPINION

DEEMER, C. J.

Defendant is a negro. On the afternoon of Sunday, December 8, 1901, he with several colored men and four white men, were in a saloon conducted by one Gaines, in or near the town of Buxton, in Mahaska county. All were drinking, and more or less intoxicated. One McCully, who was considerably under the influence of liquor, made the remark in the presence of the others that his brother had the fastest trotting horse in the state. Defendant said in response that he had a couple of trotters which he would bet a dollar could outtrot him. McCully replied that his brother's horse could outtrot them. To this defendant drew a dollar from his pocket, and said, "Here is a dollar that says that he don't." Sharper, the deceased, was standing a little apart from these men, and one Cooper was standing near McCully, trying to induce him to go home. When defendant produced his money with the declaration before quoted, Cooper turned to McCully, and said, "Take your money, Bill, and let us go." Cooper continued his offer of the dollar to McCully, who said that it was not his, and that he did not want it. At this Cooper laid the money down, and said, "Excuse me, I did not want the money any way.," and asked the pardon of both, saying "that he was not looking for trouble." On hearing this, defendant walked around to where Cooper was standing, and said, "If a fight is what you are looking for, you can get it." Cooper replied that, "We are not looking for a fight." Sharper, the deceased, interposed the remark, "No, we are not fighters," "Come, we do not want trouble." By this time the defendant had backed Cooper up against the bar which was in the room, and while standing in front of him said, "If you don't put up that knife, I will bust your heart;" accompanying the remark with the production of a revolver. Another of the men standing near, on seeing the revolver, said they did not want to fight, and did not want to have any trouble, whereupon the defendant pointed the revolver at Cooper, whom he had charged with having a knife. Cooper began to dodge and to duck behind McCully, at the same time putting up his hand, and declaring that he had no knife. Defendant continued to follow Cooper with his revolver, and he (Cooper) dodged from behind McCully to a position behind the deceased, Sharper. At the moment that he got behind Sharper, the accused fired a shot, inflicting a fatal wound upon Sharper, from which he died almost instantly. Defendant then left the building, untied his team, which was standing near, got into the buggy, and started toward the town of Albia, some seven or eight miles distant. He was next found by the roadside about a mile from Albia, and when accosted said he was sick, and that he had fallen out of his buggy. He finally walked into the town of Albia, boarded a night train, and went to Ottumwa, at which place he was arrested on December the 10th. Evidence was adduced tending to show that defendant was drunk at the time of the homicide, and claim was made at the trial that whatever he did was in defense of his person. Many errors are assigned, some of which need not be considered in view of the final disposition made of the case.

I. A witness, Lee, who testified that he was with the defendant both before and after he entered the saloon, and that he had been drinking heavily before the homicide, was asked the following questions, to which he gave answers as shown: "Q. Did you cross the lots of a woman by the name of Fisher that day? (Objected to by defendant as not proper cross-examination. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I don't know where that is. Q. Did you see Williams have his revolver out after you drank the two bottles of beer and before you got to Gaines' restaurant? (Objected to by defendant; not proper cross-examination, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I never saw him have his gun in Gaines' restaurant. Q. Did you see him have his revolver out at any time that evening after you four boys drank the two bottles of beer in the road, and before you got to Gaines' shack at that time? (Objected to by defendant; not proper cross-examination, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I don't understand you; I don't understand. I never saw him have any gun. Q. Didn't you see him point the revolver at a woman whose land he crossed on the way up there, and threaten to kill her? (Objection; not proper cross-examination, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I told you I did not see him have a gun out. Q. Didn't you see him have his revolver out? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I answered the question. Q. Didn't you hear him threaten to kill some lady who objected to his crossing her lot that first time? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I did not see him pull a gun. I was with him all the time after the two bottles of beer were drank up to the time we got to Gaines' shack. Q. Did you cross any one's lot in going to Gaines' restaurant? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I don't think we crossed any lot. It was in the roadway. Q. Did Mr. Williams talk with any lady on that trip that afternoon? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I think he did not speak to any, not to my knowing. Q. Did you see that lady or talk to any lady on the road to the new shack, or up there, or coming back to Gaines' restaurant? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) Q. Do you know Reuben Gaines? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) Q. Did you have a conversation with him with reference to that matter--with reference to the defendant having pulled out his revolver on some lady on that trip? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. He did not pull it. Q. Have you talked with him since the shooting about this matter? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. Why, he talked to me that afternoon after it was done. Q. Did you talk with Reuben Gaines at his restaurant at some time after the shooting, and soon after, with reference to what you and the defendant were doing that afternoon?, (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I spoke to him like anybody else would. Nothing in particular about it. Q. Did you talk with him in the restaurant more than once I mean in regard to this transaction about which you have testified? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. I don't know about it. No, I don't remember of speaking to him but once. Q. Now, at that time and place in Reuben Gaines' restaurant, soon after the shooting, didn't you say, in substance, that when you and the defendant were driving to Gaines' restaurant that the defendant drove across some lady's lot, and she objected to it, and that the defendant pulled his gun and pointed it at her, and threatened to kill her, and that you asked him not to do it? (Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not proper cross-examination. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. That is a mistake. I did not do it. Q. Didn't you tell him that last Sunday in the restaurant? (Same objection. Overruled, and defendant excepts.) A. No, I did not." This was an inquiry into a collateral matter, and the state was bound by the answers given. Swanson v. French, 92 Iowa 695, 61 N.W. 407. In view of the character of the answers, we should not reverse, but this was followed up by the state in rebuttal, when it introduced as a witness one Gaines, who testified as follows: "My name is Reuben Gaines. I know B. Lee. Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. B. Lee at your restaurant last Sunday night in reference to the defendant, Dick Williams, having his gun out--in reference to the gun--at time when he was crossing a lady's lot on the afternoon of December 8th? Answer 'Yes' or 'no.' (Defendant objects as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not rebutting.) Court: You may answer 'Yes' or 'No.' (Defendant excepts.) A. Yes, sir; I did. Q. You may state whether or not at that time you had in that conversation referred to the fact that the defendant had had his revolver out, and threatened to kill some woman who objected to his crossing her lot with his team, or that in substance. (Same objection. Question withdrawn.)" Here again we should not be disposed to interfere because of the character of the answers given, but for what afterwards transpired.

The bill of exceptions signed by the trial judge shows that in arguing the case to the jury one of the attorneys representing the state made use of the following language "That the witness B. Lee had lied (referring to the question propounded to the said Lee about whether or not the defendant on the afternoon of the tragedy had threatened to shoot a woman), and claimed that the...