State of Oklahoma v. Cale Smith

Durant, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with murder who claimed self-defense.



Cale Smith was convicted in the district court of Bryan county for the crime of murder, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for life. He was convicted of killing one Newt Carriker near the town of Bokchito. The killing occurred on the premises of the defendant and his widowed sister, Mrs. Addie Moffett, who had been living together in a two-room house near the rear of which was a smokehouse which had been used by the defendant as a kitchen. It appears that Mrs. Moffett had been using the rear or west room of the two-room house as a kitchen. The smokehouse which was used by the defendant was about on a line with the west end of the two-room house and a few feet south therefrom. The deceased, Carriker, had for some time previous to the killing been courting Mrs. Moffett. The defendant did not desire that he pay his attentions to his sister, and had previous to the killing ordered him not to come upon those premises. Mrs. Moffett, however, was favorable to the attention being shown her by the deceased and welcomed his presence there. This killing occurred some time between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning on or about the 25th day of August, 1915. About that time the deceased appeared at Mrs. Moffett's residence, and as to what occurred after his appearance there we prefer to quote fully from the testimony of those who were present, because certain legal questions are involved which necessarily depend upon the proof of what occurred between the deceased and the defendant at the time of this homicide.



* * *



Legal issue Is evidence of prior threats by a deceased admissible in a homicide case if the defendant is the clear aggressor and claims self-defense?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. HOMICIDE. The case addresses whether alleged threats and misconduct by the deceased towards the defendant justified the admission of evidence related to self-defense in a homicide case, assessing if the defendant acted as the aggressor and if self-defense was a viable claim.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUROR BIAS. The court considered whether the trial court erred in denying a challenge for cause to a juror who had formed an opinion based on hearsay and media reports, evaluating the juror's declaration of impartiality.



CRIMINAL LAW. SELF-DEFENSE. The court examined the exclusion of evidence regarding previous threats by the deceased, focusing on the necessity of an overt act or hostile demonstration by the deceased to support a self-defense claim.



TRIAL PROCEDURE. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. The court evaluated whether the refusal to give specific jury instructions requested by the defendant constituted prejudicial error, concluding that the instructions provided were favorable and sufficient under the circumstances.

Key Paragraphs

Highlight Key Paragraphs

"...Where the instructions given by the court are correct and are as favorable to the defendant as the evidence would warrant, the refusal to give other instructions requested by the defendant on the same subject is not such prejudicial error as would authorize the reversal of a judgment of conviction....”

"...Threats and misconduct on the part of the deceased toward the defendant occurring prior to the homicide form of themselves no justification or excuse for the taking of human life....”

"...While it is of the utmost importance that the courts of this state in the trial especially of homicide cases be very careful to safeguard the constitutional and statutory rights of the accused, it is equally important that the taking of human life be not excused or justified except in strict accordance with the established law....”

Key Phrases Self-defense in homicide cases Aggressor in the fatal encounter Exclusion of incompetent evidence Actual bias in juror selection First degree manslaughter instructions.

Guilty