Wright v. State

• Decision Date: 01 January 1875
• Parties: WILLIAM WRIGHT v. THE STATE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

43 Tex. 170

WILLIAM WRIGHT

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1875.

APPEAL from Caldwell. Tried below before the Hon. John P. White.

On the morning of the 10th of May, 1873, Charles Brite, a freedman, was called from his bed about two hours before day by five men, one of whom represented himself to be James Galbreath, a constable of Caldwell county; by them he was taken away and brutally murdered. He was seen no more until about noon, the 11th day of May, when his body was found about three-fourths of a mile from his house, horribly mangled. The limbs were broken, there were marks of a rope upon the neck, wrists, and ankles, and a gun-shot wound through the mouth and back of the neck, and other marks of violence, from the effects of which he had died.

Soon after the murder several freedmen who were suspected as the murderers were arrested, examined, and admitted to bail. At the January term, 1874, of the District Court of Caldwell county, five freedmen, to wit, Page Sims, Henry Elmore, Isaiah Hemphill, Roden Hemphill, and Sim Tucker were jointly indicted by the grand jury for the murder of Charles Brite.

About Christmas, 1873, Joe Hemphill, the particeps criminis, and principal witness for the State in this cause, left the neighborhood of Charles Brite, where he had lived, and went to Walker county, near the city of Huntsville. In February, 1874, a warrant was issued for his arrest, and James Galbreath, a constable of Caldwell county, went to the city of Huntsville, arrested Hemphill, returned with him, and placed him in the jail at San Marcus. While upon the cars returning from Huntsville Joe Hemphill confessed to Galbreath (upon the false statement of Galbreath that other parties arrested were anxious to tell all about the murder, but that if he, Joe, would tell it would go easy with him,) that he was one of the murderers.

At the April term, 1874, of the District Court of Caldwell county, a white man, named Thomas Jennings, the appellant, William Wright, and Joe Hemphill, both freedmen, were jointly indicted for the murder of Charles Brite. At the same term of the court a trial was had upon the indictment against Page Sims, Henry Elmore, Isaiah Hemphill, Roden Hemphill, and Sim Tucker; and Isaiah and Roden Hemphill claiming a severance, the district attorney elected to put Page Sims, Henry Elmore, and Sim Tucker upon trial, and entered a nolle prosequi as to Sims. During the progress of the trial the district attorney caused Joe Hemphill, who, together with appellant and Thomas Jennings, was indicted for the same offense, to be brought from the county jail and placed upon the stand as a witness for the State. The defendants objected to his testifying while the indictment was pending against him, which objection being sustained by the court, the district attorney caused a nollepros. to be entered as to Joe Hemphill also, and proceeded with the trial.

The jury upon this trial found Henry Elmore and Sim Tucker guilty of murder in the second degree, and assessed their punishment at ten years' confinement in the State penitentiary. On a subsequent day of the same term appellant was put upon trial, his co-defendant, Joe Hemphill, being again used as a witness for the State, and was convicted of murder in the second degree, his punishment being assessed at five years' confinement in the State penitentiary. There was a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and judgment rendered in accordance with the verdict of the jury, from which judgment he appealed.

The testimony of Joe Hemphill, the accomplice, on whose evidence the verdict rested, was contradicted in several particulars by other witnesses, and corroborated by none in such manner as to connect him with the killing.

The defendant's counsel asked the court to charge the jury, in addition to the charge already given, (which is referred to in the opinion,) that the corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice, which is necessary to convict, “must not only connect the prisoner and the accomplice together, but must show that the prisoner was engaged in the transaction which forms the subject-matter of the charge under investigation.” This was refused.

On the trial the defendant objected to the testimony of Joe Hemphill, on the ground that while confined in jail charged with the murder of Charles Brite, he had been taken thence, without the order of the court, and carried to the grand-jury room, and upon his testimony thus procured the indictment found against the prisoner was returned, which objection was overruled, and defendant excepted.

He also excepted to the action of the court in permitting the State to give in evidence the fact that other part...