Yarbrough v. State
| Decision Date | 06 February 1917 |
| Docket Number | A-2269. |
| Parties | YARBROUGH v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where evidence introduced by the state is a mere conclusion or opinion of the witness, held that, when its effect is to directly corroborate and sustain the contention and theory of the defendant, he is not prejudiced and cannot complain.
Held, further, that where a defendant, charged with murder, pleads insanity, accident, and self-defense, it is competent for the state to prove that immediately after the homicide he armed himself and left the vicinity; for one who is so insane as to be unconscious of the character and quality of his act is not conscious of guilt, and one who kills his fellow man by accident, or in defense of his own person, is not conscious of guilt, and the fact that the accused immediately armed himself and retreated from the scene of the homicide was a circumstance to be considered by the jury in passing upon the merit of his respective pleas.
Where the court in the midst of a trial, and before the case had been submitted to the jury, permitted the jury, during a recess, to separate, saying to them, "Gentlemen, under the previous admonitions you may be excused," held, first, that before the case is finally submitted to the jury it is discretionary with the judge whether they be permitted to separate or be kept in the charge of a bailiff; and, second, that if defendant desired that a bailiff be in charge of the jury, or that the court specifically repeat the statutory admonition, he should have requested it, but, having acquiesced by silence, he will not now be heard to complain.
A court should not instruct upon an element of crime not in the case since such would only tend to confuse the jury.
The court should also refuse to instruct the jury to the effect that the pleas tendered by the defendant are not inconsistent. The defendant has a right to enter as many pleas as he sees fit, whether consistent or inconsistent; and the judge should instruct the jury upon each defense which is supported by competent evidence, but should not tell the jury whether they are consistent or inconsistent.
Error from District Court, Atoka County; Jesse M. Hatchett, Judge.
T. M Yarbrough was convicted of manslaughter in the first decree and he brings error. Affirmed.
Linebaugh Bros. & Pinson, of Atoka, for plaintiff in error.
R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error in this case, T. M. Yarbrough, who will be referred to as defendant, was prosecuted in the district court of Atoka county for murder, and convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 15 years.
The difficulty occurred in a horse lot at Edgar's Mill, and the material facts, as developed by the state, are that the defendant was employed by Edgar, who owned and operated a sawmill; that Will Landrum, the deceased, was also in the employ of Edgar, as foreman at this mill; that on the day of the homicide the defendant complained that Edgar had not paid him according to contract, and used some abusive language with reference to Edgar and his business methods. In response to this language Landrum stated that Edgar was away, but would pay him as soon as he returned, and assured defendant that he would get all that was due him. This seemed to further enrage defendant, and he referred to Edgar as "a damn thief," and further said, "Anybody that will take up for him is no better than he is." Landrum replied by calling the defendant "a damn liar."
Defendant seized an ax and started toward Landrum; Landrum retreated, and started to go out the lot gate. The defendant dropped the ax, and intercepted Landrum at the gate, and told him that if he went out the gate that he would kill him. Landrum stepped back from the gate, and the defendant pulled a pistol; and Landrum called to the bystanders, saying, "Boys, don't let him shoot me." One of the bystanders called to the defendant and said, "Don't shoot him." About that time Landrum made an effort to seize the pistol, but one of the state's witnesses, who claimed to be in position to see what occurred, testified that he did not reach the gun. Defendant then threw his left arm around Landrum's neck, and fired the fatal shot; Landrum sank to his knees, and defendant then went to his own house, which was only a short distance away, procured a shotgun, and left the premises. The state's witnesses testified that Landrum had nothing in his hands during the difficulty.
The defendant pleaded insanity, accident, and self-defense, and offered evidence in support of each of these defenses. He testified that he and his family had had nothing to eat for two days, that his children were crying for bread, and that his distress produced temporary insanity; that he did not intend to injure the deceased, but deceased struck at him twice with an open knife, and each time slashed his coat which was offered in evidence; that he drew the pistol to strike deceased with it, but that deceased seized it, and in the scuffle that followed it was accidentally discharged and inflicted the fatal wound. The state offered rebuttal evidence, as above indicated, to show that...
To continue reading
Request your trial