Watson v. State
| Decision Date | 22 July 1912 |
| Citation | 124 P. 1101,7 Okla.Crim. 590,1912 OK CR 224 |
| Parties | WATSON v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
(a) When the record discloses that counsel for the state, in the prosecution of a person charged with crime, has been guilty of conduct calculated to arouse the prejudice or passion of the jury and prevent the accused from having a fair and impartial trial, a conviction had should be set side by the trial court, and a new trial awarded.
(b) When the record on appeal discloses the fact that counsel for the prosecution in a murder trial has been guilty of misconduct in attempting to get before the jury incompetent evidence calculated and intended to prejudice the rights of the person on trial, this court cannot uphold a judgment of conviction, and a new trial will be awarded.
(c) Mild rebukes of counsel guilty of prejudicial conduct, and continual efforts to override the rulings of the court and the plain principles of law in endeavoring to get incompetent and prejudicial matters before the jury, cannot be held to cure the injury resulting from such prejudicial action.
(d) In many cases rebukes do not seem to have any effect upon prosecuting officers, and, the effect of such misconduct being reasonably calculated to prejudice the jury, the only way to secure a fair trial when such conduct occurs is to set aside a verdict so obtained.
(e) The repeated asking of incompetent questions, which clearly have for their purpose the intimation of something to the jury that is either not true or not capable of being proven if true, is wrong, and such conduct of counsel is not cured because the court sustains objections to the questions.
(f) In jury trials, incalculable harm is often done by counsel in asking known incompetent questions in the hearing of the jury and thereby forcing the adverse party to object to them also in the hearing of the jury, which manifests a fear of the incompetent questions, and gives emphasis to the harmful matter they are supposed to contain.
(a) The county attorney is a quasi judicial officer, and represents the state in all criminal prosecutions. The state at the hands of the law demands no victims; it seeks justice only. And it is as much the duty of the prosecuting attorney to see that no innocent man suffers as it is to see that no guilty person escapes. He should act impartially, and should present the state's case fairly and vigorously, but should not press upon the jury any deductions from the evidence that are not reasonably legitimate. When, in his zeal, he permits himself to appeal to the prejudice or passion of the jury, he is no longer an impartial officer, but is a heated partisan.
(b) When special counsel assist a prosecuting attorney in the trial of a criminal case, such counsel represents the county attorney and is governed by the same rules of propriety.
(c) However strong the prosecuting attorney's belief may be of the prisoner's guilt, he must remember that, though unfair trials may happen to result in doing justice in particular cases, yet justice so obtained is dangerous to the whole community. It matters not how guilty a person on trial charged with crime may be, he is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, and a judgment of conviction for murder, and the imposition of a life sentence, would be as great a wrong to society if unfairly secured, although the accused might be guilty, as it would for such person to go unwhipped of justice.
Trial courts and prosecuting attorneys in this state must conduct the trial of criminal cases in a fair and impartial manner and according to the rules of law. In the interest of the law-abiding public, this court has used every reasonable means to uphold judgments of conviction when in good conscience it could do so. But the aversion of this court to reversing judgments of conviction must not be understood by the trial courts and prosecuting attorneys as a license to disregard the rights of persons on trial accused of crime. It is no compliment to a trial court or prosecuting attorney to have the doctrine of harmless error invoked by this court in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and excuse some error growing out of their misconduct or failure to follow the law.
Appeal from District Court, Bryan County; M. C. Garber, Judge.
C. H Watson was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed, with directions to grant new trial.
Chas E. McPherren and Utterback, Hays & McDonald, for plaintiff in error.
J. T McIntosh, Co. Atty., and C. B. Cochran, Deputy Co. Atty., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, C. H. Watson, was convicted at the July 1909, term of the district court of Bryan county for the murder of Wesley Crabtree, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment for life in the state penitentiary. The appeal was perfected in this court on the 7th day of March, 1910.
In 1907 the deceased, Crabtree, married Miss Ollie Watson, a minor daughter of the accused. The marriage was against the wishes of the accused and engendered a bitter feeling between them, out of which threats were indulged in on the part of both the accused and deceased. In the spring of 1908, the accused concluded to become reconciled to the marriage and sent Sheriff Hamilton to see the deceased and affect the reconciliation, which was done, and the families exchanged visits. Later friction arose between the accused and the deceased and his wife over the shooting of a mule. About a month before the killing occurred, the deceased was in a hardware store in the town of Sterret and purchased some cartridges in company with his brother-in-law, who said that one of the cartridges then being purchased would get the accused Watson. On Tuesday night before the homicide, the wife of the deceased spent the night at the home of the accused, and while there charged that her sister Addie had been forced to marry Dr. McCalib on account of misconduct the accused had seen between her sister and Dr. McCalib, and said that the information had been given the deceased by Coleman Hodge, Curt Chestnut, and a man named Thomas. This statement by the wife of the deceased was communicated to the accused by his daughter Addie who was very much affected by it. The accused attempted to pacify her, and thereafter investigated the report, and learned that no such statement had in fact been made to the deceased. The wife of the accused, learning of the investigation, returned to the home of the accused just prior to the homicide and denied making some parts of the statement, and told her father, the accused, that deceased, her husband, had not been in the habit of carrying a gun for him, but that he would do so hereafter. On the day following such conversation, the accused went to Durant, and while there was passed by the deceased and a man who was a stranger to the accused. Neither spoke, but, after passing where the accused sat, the deceased motioned back and said, "There is the old son of a bitch now." On the following day, which was Saturday, the accused returned to Durant and passed the deceased on the road home, and was asked by him about lies which he said the accused was trying to make out against him. The accused asked what lies he meant, and he replied, "The Coleman Hodge lies," and added that he would shoot the accused's damn head off if he attempted to make him out a liar, and exhibited a pistol at the time.
The testimony on behalf of the accused tends to show that on the Monday following he went to the town of Allison on business connected with the election, and arrived there about 1 o'clock. After transacting his business, he started home, and met one McCalib, and was talking to him when the deceased and his brother-in-law rode up. Neither spoke. The accused and McCalib started to the home of McCalib, when the deceased called to the accused and said, "Watson, I want to talk to you." The accused replied, "I have no talk for you," and did not stop, but turned his head and looked toward the deceased, who stated that he had come to settle "those damn lies" the accused had been telling. The accused replied by inviting him to go to Coleman Hodge and not to be jumping on him, that he had a statement from Hodge, and that deceased could go to Hodge and settle the affair. The deceased then said The accused then started toward Chestnut's store, which was near, and the deceased started toward the same place. The accused told the deceased that he had a letter from Hodge, and that he could read it; that the accused had no settlement whatever to make with the deceased. During this conversation both parties were going toward Chestnut's store from slightly different directions, and, when they approached the corner of the porch in front of the store, the deceased said. "You and Coleman Hodge have been talking about me." The accused replied, "You are a damn liar." When he made this remark the deceased attempted to draw a weapon, and the accused quickly drew a revolver and fired. Accused testified that he thought it necessary to do so in order to save his life; that, at the time he shot, the deceased was making a demonstration to draw a weapon.
The testimony of the state tended to show that on the Sunday before the homicide accused stated to a witness that deceased was a bad boy and that he was going to kill him, and that he would do it before the sun went down Saturday night. On the day of the homicide the deceased had been to the little town of Allison to get medicine for a sick horse, and while there passed the accused and McCalib, and spoke to them. The deceased then called the accused and said, "Mr Watson, I want to talk to you a while." The accused replied "I have no...
To continue reading
Request your trial