Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 24 June 1897
• Citation: 41 S.W. 645
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 645

41 S.W. 645

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 24, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Harris county; E. D. Cavin, Judge.

Lewis Williams appeals from a conviction of murder. Reversed.

J. M. Gibson, for appellant. Hutcheson, Campbell & Sears, Frank Andrews, and Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at death; hence this appeal.

In order to properly consider appellant's bills of exception, we will summarize the evidence in the case: The state offered testimony, of a circumstantial character, tending to show that appellant was the guilty party, and also offered in evidence the confessions of appellant, made to three different witnesses, to the same effect. Appellant introduced proof of an alibi, and also denied making the confessions. The evidence on the part of the state showed that the murder was committed in the city of Houston on the night of the 27th day of May, 1896. The deceased, I. B. Baker, was living in a two-story house at the corner of McKinney and La Branch streets. At the time, his family was absent on a visit to Navasota, and the only inmates of the house were deceased, Frank Andrews, and H. J. Simmons, all of whom occupied separate sleeping rooms in the second story,—the last two named being boarders. On the night in question, Andrews came in, went upstairs, and retired to his room, about 11 o'clock; locking the door and going to bed. He left the night lamp, which was lighted, on the stair steps. At about 12 o'clock, H. J. Simmons came in. He also went upstairs to his room, and as he went up he took the lamp with him, and set it on a table in the hall and blew it out, and went to his room and went to bed. These witnesses did not know whether the deceased, Baker, had gone to bed when they arrived. Simmons states that he noticed that the door of his room was closed, and that there was no light in the room. Both testify that there was no chair or obstruction on the front stairway when they came up. Neither of said witnesses heard any disturbance in the house during the night, and both were unaware that a murder had been committed in said house until they were aroused by others early the next morning. About 6 o'clock the next morning the cook, Amelia Pearson, who slept some two blocks distant from the house, came to prepare breakfast, and came into the main house through the kitchen, and there discovered the deceased lying at the back stairway. She immediately gave the alarm, and it was discovered that I. B. Baker had been murdered. It was discovered that the house had been burglarized; some person having entered the kitchen through a small window, and then gone into the main house. As evidence that the person entering the house had done so for the purpose of burglary, a quantity of silverware was found in some bags on the table in the kitchen, evidently arranged for the purpose of being carried away, and also the pants of deceased were found in the hallway near the main or front stairs. The front stairway was found to be barricaded or obstructed by a chair which extended clear across the stairway, and the rear stairway was also obstructed by a chair. Evidently the deceased lost his life on the back stairway, near the obstruction, which was close to the landing or little platform where the stair turns, as the blood was found along said stairway from that point to the lower floor where the deceased was lying. He was found to be shot in the eye, the bullet going through his mouth and through his jaw; the same bullet evidently penetrating the wall of the little stairway where the struggle began. Marks of violence were also discovered on the face and across the mouth of the deceased. A six-shooter, with one barrel freshly discharged, was found near where deceased was lying. The theory of the state was: That the person perpetrating the homicide was familiar with the place. He knew the situation of all the rooms and the approaches thereto, and the situation of the stairways, —both the back and front. That, after having procured the silver and bundled it up, he then went upstairs into the room of deceased. About the time he got the deceased's pants and started out of the room, the deceased discovered him and made pursuit, armed with a large pistol,—the one found lying near where he fell at the base of the stairs. That the party, on being discovered, ran out of the room with the pants of the deceased. The deceased, in his pursuit, in the darkness, passed the person, and ran down the front stairway, and then proceeded to the back stairway, and was going up that, when he met his slayer about midway of the stairs, and the conflict ensued in which deceased was killed. As circumstances tending to show that appellant was the perpetrator of the homicide, the state introduced proof showing that appellant had previously, for two or three years, been employed about the house of the deceased, that some three or four months previous he had voluntarily quit said employment, and that he was perfectly familiar with all the conditions and surroundings of said premises. It was shown that about a month previous he had applied to Mrs. Baker to borrow a dollar, and she, not having the change, applied to her sister, Miss May White, an inmate of the house, to loan her that amount. Appellant accompanied Mrs. Baker to the door of the room, and saw her take from the drawer about $100 in bills, and so he became aware of where the money of Miss White was kept. It was also shown that, a few days before the homicide, appellant (who was in the habit of visiting the place) came to the house and interviewed the colored boy, by the name of William Boulding, as to where the family was, and how long they would be absent. H. C. Burtis testified that after he parted with Mr. Simmons, in front of the house of the deceased, as he went around the corner on La Branch street on the night of the homicide he saw a person in the rear of the premises, on the sidewalk, and on account of his suspicious appearance he watched him closely; that he had never seen the appellant before, but on subsequently seeing him, after his arrest, he took the defendant and the person he saw to be one and the same person. This was a little after 12 o'clock on the night of the murder. A negro (Jack Mitchell), who knew the defendant well, testified that he was at a point on Lamar street about half past 1 o'clock on the night of the homicide, and he saw a man going down on the opposite side of Lamar street, towards Main street, in a fast walk, with his hat pulled down over his face; that when the party got opposite to him under the electric light, he recognized that it was the defendant, and hailed him, and said: "Hello, Mr. Williams! Is that you?" Defendant waived his hand and said: "Don't you speak to me. I am in trouble. If you say anything to me, you may get in trouble too." Defendant was going in a fast walk, and soon distanced witness. It was also shown that appellant, though he appeared to have quite a friendship for the deceased, acted somewhat peculiarly on the day of the homicide; and, although the homicide was a sensation in the city of Houston on the next day, he does not appear to have known of it until about 11 o'clock, and he did not go to the residence of the deceased until about 4 o'clock that evening. These are substantially the salient features of the circumstantial evidence offered by the state. In addition, the state offered, through a negro detective, Bass Reeves, the confessions of the defendant made to him at Marshall. This party seems to have been employed for the purpose of hunting down the guilty person, and to have been with the defendant and shadowed him for some months. He went with him to various points; to Marshall, Shreveport, Indian Territory, and back again to Houston. He states that: "At Marshall he asked the defendant what he had killed Mr. Baker for, and he stated he killed Mr. Baker, but he didn't go there to do it; that Little Bit needed some money, and he went there to get it; that he knew Mr. Baker always carried money in his pockets, and that when he went into the house, and just as he had gotten Mr. Baker's clothes out of his room, Mr. Baker woke up and got after him, and that he darted into the hall in the dark. Mr. Baker passed him and ran on downstairs, and when he [Baker] came up the stairs he [Lewis] met him [Baker] and he [Lewis] cut at him [Baker]. Mr. Baker snapped his pistol at him, and he wrenched it out of his hands, shot him with it, and killed him. He said that he didn't go there to kill Mr. Baker, but that he done it from fear; he had to do it." The state also proved by a negro woman, Jennie Goodby, that she overheard defendant make the same statement; that she was listening at the door on one occasion, and heard him tell the witness Bass Reeves what has already been stated. It was also shown by one John Selsar that the detective, Reeves, brought defendant to his ranch in the Indian Territory, and the defendant there made the following confession to him: That on one occasion he went to where Reeves and defendant were, having previously had an understanding with Reeves, and stated to them both: "You boys say you are just from Houston, and you were both in jail about that Baker murder down there. Now, tell me which one of you it was that killed Baker." Defendant remarked that Reeves had nothing to do with it, that "I [defendant] and others done it." That he then asked him why he did it, and he said he did it from fear, but that he did not like to talk about it. Appellant showed by his witnesses an alibi; that is, that from 12 o'clock until the next morning he was at another and different place; that is, that he went from a certain dance hall in the city of Houston at about 12 o'clock, that he went with Mary Harris to her home, and he left her about 1 o'clock. Henrietta Mitchell, the paramour of...