Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 09 December 1950 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. 27 Beeler 456, 191 Tenn. 456, 234 S.W.2d 993 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Thomas Crutchfield, L. D. Miller, Jr., Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.
J. Malcolm Shull, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree with punishment fixed at death by electrocution.
The defendant shot and killed another Negro, Horace Wilson, on the night of November 11, 1949. The deceased's death resulted by being shot in the back by the defendant with a .410 gauge shotgun. There is little controversy as to the facts.
On the evening of the shooting, the defendant and the deceased were engaged in a crap game. A controversy arose as to whether a dollar involved in a throw of the dice belonged to the defendant or to the deceased. The state's proof shows that the defendant told the deceased that he was going home and get his gun and kill him. The witness Sam Jones, brother-in-law of the defendant, testified that he went to the home of the defendant and got the gun for the purpose of keeping it from the defendant. There is proof, however, that defendant did get the gun from his brother-in-law and found the deceased in front of his home. According to the defendant's own testimony, he again demanded that the deceased give him his dollar. The state's evidence is that the defendant shot the deceased between the shoulder blades at very close range. The record clearly shows that the defendant had been drinking considerably during the afternoon and evening. The defendant testified that the deceased had drawn a dagger on him before and had threatened him at the time of the shooting; that at the time the deceased was coming on him with his knife 'like that', the defendant also testified that he thought his life was in danger and that while he could see both hands of the deceased, he did not know whether he had a knife or gun. His explanation for shooting the deceased in the back is that when he was in the act of firing, the deceased suddenly turned his back to him.
The case as made out by the state is one of murder in the first degree if believed by the jury. However, it appears that after the Court had fully charged the jury and it had deliberated approximately an hour and a half, they returned to the courtroom and asked: 'If we give this man a sentence for a term of years, will this mean that he will have to stay in prison the whole time?'
The trial judge answered:
After further deliberation of less than five minutes, the jury returned with a verdict of electrocution.
The defendant relies upon an assignment of error complaining of this action by the trial judge and upon our own case of Porter v. State, 177 Tenn. 515, 523, 151 S.W.2d 171, 174. In this cited case, the jury came in and asked the following question:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morse
...those rules it infringes upon the prerogatives of other departments of government.' (267 S.W.2d at p. 76.) In Williams v. State (1950) 191 Tenn. 456, 234 S.W.2d 993, the responsibility of choosing between the death penalty and life imprisonment likewise was reposed in the jury. The Tennesse......
-
State v. Todd
...388 P.2d 33, (1964); Burnette v. State, 151 So.2d 9 (Fla.1963); Sukle v. People, 107 Colo. 269, 111 P.2d 233 (1941); Williams v. State, 191 Tenn. 456, 234 S.W.2d 993 (1950). In some jurisdictions, it has been held proper for a jury to consider the possibility of parole so long as the trial ......
-
State v. Laws
...State v. White, 60 Wash.2d 551, 374 P.2d 942, 955 (1962); State v. Odom, 200 Tenn. 231, 292 S.W.2d 23 (1956); Williams v. State, 191 Tenn. 456, 234 S.W.2d 993 (1950); Batts v. State, 189 Tenn. 30, 222 S.W.2d 190 (1946); Mays v. State, 143 Tenn. 443, 226 S.W. 233 In Williams v. State the def......
-
Farris v. State
...of the defendant and the attitude of the Parole Board under the indeterminate sentence law' was held reversible in Williams v. State, 191 Tenn. 456, 234 S.W.2d 993 (1950). See also Keith v. State, 218 Tenn. 395, 403 S.W.2d 758 (1966); Hale v. State, 198 Tenn. 461, 281 S.W.2d 51 It is obviou......