Williams v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 23 April 1935 |
| Parties | Williams v. Commonwealth. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Criminal Law; Homicide. — Evidence as to result of search of body of deceased, as to fight between accused and witness after homicide in automobile in which witness' face was wounded and as to statements of accused after killing that "one more murder won't hurt," and that he shot accused in a holdup, held admissible as res gestae, as being part of original homicide, and as tending to establish accused's guilt.
2. Homicide. — Voluntary manslaughter instruction was authorized, where defendant testified that he was present at isolated spot on old lane along creek side some distance from frequently traveled way for purpose of meeting woman, and that fight followed between defendant and male companion of woman, in which companion was killed, and that defendant did not attempt to rob companion, as maintained by commonwealth.
3. Homicide. — Qualification of manslaughter instruction, if jury believed from evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that at time deceased was shot defendant was not attempting to rob him by pointing a pistol at him, held prejudicially erroneous under evidence that defendant was making no attempt to rob deceased, but was present only for the purpose of meeting a woman and that a fight followed in which deceased was killed.
4. Homicide. — Court must give proper instructions without qualification upon every phase of homicide which has substantial basis in evidence.
5. Homicide. — Where homicide is committed while accused is attempting to commit, or is committing, a felony, such as robbery, which tends to injury of another, either immediately or by necessary consequences, killing under such circumstances is murder.
6. Criminal Law. — Instruction in homicide prosecution which placed upon defendant burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that he was not perpetrating robbery, which was part of his defense, held error.
7. Criminal Law. — Where defendant's contention raised by evidence was that he made no attempt to rob deceased, but was present only for purpose of meeting a woman, and fight followed in which deceased was killed, defendant's theory of defense should have been embraced in murder instruction, but should not have been added as a qualification to manslaughter instruction.
8. Homicide. — Error in instruction relating to higher degree of homicide than that of which defendant is convicted is harmless.
9. Homicide. — Whether error in instruction relating to lower degree of homicide than that of which defendant was convicted is prejudicial depends on facts and nature of error.
10. Homicide. — Error in instruction relating to lower degree of homicide than that of which defendant was convicted, while ordinarily harmless, held prejudicial error, where it could not be said that jury would not have found defendant guilty of lower degree of homicide, had correct instruction on that phase of case been given.
Appeal from McCracken Circuit Court.
ROY GARRISON and ROY HOLMAN for appellant.
BAILEY P. WOOTTON, Attorney General, and RAY L. MURPHY, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY STANLEY, COMMISSIONER.Reversing.
The appeal is by John Williams from a judgment of death for the murder of Charles Styers on September 27, 1934.
Mrs. Myrtle Hale testified that she and Styers, a married man whose wife was visiting in Chicago, drove into the country to eat a picnic supper about 7 o'clock. They went out the "Husband Road" and then turned off on what is called the "Lane Road." The automobile was stopped at the side of this old logging lane in a patch of weeds. In a few minutes the appellant approached, then went into the weeds, and presently arose and came to the car in which she and Styers were sitting. He drew a pistol and commanded, "Stick 'em up." Styers asked what he meant, and he responded, "This is a holdup; get out of that car." They did so; and Williams ordered the witness to walk up the road until he told her to stop and then to lie down on the ground. She ran a few yards and then into the weeds. She heard several shots fired back at the car. Styers had had a pistol in the pocket of the automobile. Both men were wounded. Styers fell in the road as he came toward her. She asked Williams to help take him to a doctor, but he responded, He commanded her to keep on driving, saying he was going to die and repeating that "one more murder won't hurt." Near the home of her uncle she slowed down, intending to stop, but he put his pistol to her side and compelled her to keep on. Presently he laid the pistol in his lap and began examining the wound in his chest, and she grabbed the weapon and threw it out the window. He struck her and she ran the machine into the ditch and screamed for help. This was some distance from the place of the shooting. There was quite a fight or tussle in the car between the witness and the defendant, during which, she testified, he kept on beating her. Soon he got out of the car and some men came up. While he was lying on the ground, he told them his name was Arthur Lane, but later said he was going to die and would tell the truth and that his name was John Williams and that he shot the man in a holdup. The details of his statements are related somewhat differently by several witnesses, but they are not material.
The defendant testified he was a native of McMinnville, Tenn., but had no regular home. He was thirty-three years old, and appears to have been a wanderer. He was allowed to testify that his mother was insane when she died and he had several uncles and aunts who were insane; also that in 1930 at Johnson City, Tenn., he had been given a "sanity hearing," but was turned loose as being harmless. Concerning the tragedy, the defendant testified that while in Paducah on a previous occasion he had made the acquaintance of Myrtle Hale, and on the day before the homicide he met up with her on or near the railroad tracks. After a conversation, arrangements were made for him to meet her at 6 o'clock the next evening at the place where the killing occurred. She told him how to get out there, and he went solely for the purpose of meeting the woman. She got out of the car and was walking along the road when he came out from the side and met her. The man, whom he had not previously seen, walked up and became excited and pulled his pistol and started shooting and did shoot him. He was dazed and began firing. At one place in his testimony he stated when he saw Styers he was surprised, and that his pistol fell from his pocket and he caught it, and then Styers drew his weapon and shot him. As to his statements on the roadside about having killed the man in a holdup, the defendant testified he did not know what he had said.
There were some other statements proven against the accused and denied by him. Mrs. Hale in rebuttal denied the defendant's story altogether...
To continue reading
Request your trial