Case Name: William Fowler v. State of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1909-03
Citations: 95 Miss. 510
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Fowler v. State of Mississippi.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 510–525

Head Matter:
William Fowler v. State of Mississippi.
[49 South. 625.]
■Criminal Law and Procedure. Evidence. Letter. Conspiracy to murder.
A letter without probative force on the issues involved in a trial for murder; and of wbicb the accused had no knowledge before the homicide, is not admissible in evidence-to show his non-participation in a conspiracy to kill the writer, and the exclusion of the same is not reversible error.
From the circuit court of Tate county.
How. William A. Roane, Judge.
Fowler, appellant, and his son Richard Fowler and son-in-law John Burnett, were jointly indicted in the circuit court ■of Panola county for the murder of Lawrence Turner. On motion the yenue was changed to Tate county; appellant was -separately tried and convicted of murder, sentenced to the penitentiary for life, and appealed to the supreme court.
The opinion of the court states the facts.
P. H. Lowrey, for appellant.
The evidence shows that- the appellant was not present when the homicide was committed. There is no positive proof that appellant was in any way connected with the homicide, the circumstances shown in evidence tending, if at all, only to make him an accessory before the fact. Newman v. State, 12 Miss. 124.
The appellant not only did not participate in the homicide, but actually knew nothing about it until several days after the unfortunate tragedy. While it is true that the appellant had made threats to kill “stave hikers,” referring to the young men who were working getting out staves, yet such threats were made on the date of a marriage of a daughter of his some time before the events connected with this killing.
• The theory of the defense in the court below was that the deceased, Turner, was killed by Richard Fowler and John Burnett, a son and a son-in-law respectively of the appellant, because Turner was attempting to corrupt appellant’s young daughter Bettie; and that the deceased was killed at a time when he was attempting to carry out an engagement made with her for improper purposes. The appellant had no knowledge that the deceased was attempting to debauch his daughter. The evidence shows that the appellant and his wife cannot read or write, but a letter from the deceased to appellant’s daughter had been intercepted by the mother of Bettie Fowler, the daughter, and carried to the wife of John Burnett the son-in-law who helped to do the killing; and both the son and the son-in-law of appellant knew of the contents of the letter. Now, the son and son-in-law were the actual perpetrators of the homicide, according to the undisputed testimony of the son-in-law. The fact that the appellant suspected that the deceased was trying to elope with his daughter, and that appellant had permitted the deceased to continue 'his visits to the home, strongly negatives any question of knowledge on appellant’s part that the deceased had unworthy purposes in mind with regard to his daughter. If the prevention of the supposed debauchery of the daughter was the occasion of the crime, then the state has failed to prove that appellant had any suspicion of the deceased as to this. The court below excluded the larger part of the testimony offered by the appellant in support of his theory, and this naturally was to the great prejudice of the rights of appellant to have a fair and impartial trial.
It is distinctly shown by the testimony of Bettie Fowler and Miles Barney that the deceased was not near appellant’s home in order to effectuate his plans for an elopement with appellant’s daughter but was there with a different purpose. Burnett, the son-in-law of appellant, testified that deceased was killed to prevent the consummation of this base purpose. "Why the court below should have refused to admit the letter from the deceased to Bettie Fowler in evidence, when it was shown to the jury that the son and son-in-law of appellant knew its contents and acted as a result of having heard it read, is inexplicable. This letter, dated June 4, was full of endearing terms of affection, deplored the fact that the writer had been unable to see or hear from appellant’s daughter for several days, and stated that the writer would have left the country long ago but for his great love for her. It further stated: “Darling you know where I saw you last, I cannot but think how good of you it was to be so kind to me, one that loves you more than anything in this life. Say, darling love,-will you please tell me one thing for a certain fact, will you on the night before the Fourth of July see me where you did the last time I saw you and about the same time I think you will understand, when you answer this let me know,” etc. It strongly suggests a prospective improper meeting and strongly tends to corroborate the testimony offered to show that there had been an improper meeting between the writer and the girl on the night of May 10.
It was offered to be shown by the testimony of John Burnett and others that appellant had. nothing to do with the burial of the deceased, that he advised against the manner of burial and in fact sought in a way to prevent it and urged the perpetrators to give notice publicly to the community of their acts as avengers of a great wrong done to the family. The court below however, excluded such testimony and this constituted error.
If, as contended by appellant, the killing was because of the debauching of the daughter, the state’s theory must fall to the ground as invalid, and the evidence cannot be held to warrant the conviction of appellant. And if all of the evidence, including that which was by the court below excluded, leaves a reasonable doubt as to what motives prompted the killing, then the jury should have heard it all and the exclusion of any part of it was error. Questions of fact are for the jury, and sucL questions cannot be fairly decided unless every circumstance tending to establish the facts is admitted in evidence, and this is peculiarly the case when the evidence is circumstantial.
George Butter, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
The record presents an unusual spectacle, a young lady testifying against her father and the father seeking to justify his acts by showing that his daughter had been debauched by her sweetheart.
It is complained in the brief and oral argument of counsel for appellant that the court below should have permitted the appellant to show that he advised against the burying of the body of the deceased. This was clearly a self-serving declaration made accoi’ding to the appellant’s own testimony some time after the crime had been committed; and, besides this, the record shows beyond a preadventure of a doubt that even though the appellant might have protested against the disposition of the body, yet he afterwards acquiesced in its burial, and that although he had a telephone in his house, he did not tell anyone of the crime until Tuesday, after its commission on Sunday, nor charge that his son-in-law and son were the perpetrators of it.
It is further contended by'opposing counsel that the court should have permitted a certain letter to be admitted in evidence, and opposing counsel seek to evade the holding of the court in Reed v. State, 62 Miss. 405, by saying that it was not the purpose of this proffered evidence to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter but to show a motive on the part of young Fowler and Burnett to commit the deed for the alleged reason that it does not appear from the record that appellant had any knowledge of the existence of this letter. It is true that there is no direct and positive testimony that appellant knew of the existence of the letter, but there are many facts and circumstances showing his knowledge thereof. His wife knew it, his daughter knéw it, his son knew it, and John Burnett knew it. From all the facts and circumstances in evidence it is inconceivable that appellant did not also1 know it. Now the court will bear in mind that certain clauses of the letter were read to Bettie Fowler on the trial without objection and she identified it as being in the hand-writing of the deceased. John Burnett testified that he participated in the killing to keep the deceased from debauching the girl. It seems too clear for argument that this assassination was planned and discussed by these three men, appellant, his son and Burnett, some time before its consummation. Of course, anything that would reduce Burnett’s and Richard Fowler’s crime from murder to manslaughter would likewise reduce appellant’s crime. The letter furnished no greater motive to appellant’s co-defendants than to appellant himself and it is evident that its only purpose in being shown in evidence could have been to show existence of br.evis furor.
Hnder our law, as it now stands, it is practically for the jury to fix the punishment, and if the appellant had been found guilty as charged it might with some show of reason be contended -for appellant that evidence of the kind offered was admissible but such a complaint had no place in this record because the jury fixed the punishment at imprisonment for life in the penitentiary.
Argued orally by P. PL. Lowry and L. L. Pearson, for appellant, and by George Butter, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.

Opinion:
Mates, J.,
delivered the majority opinion of the court.
On Sunday, July 5, 1908, Lawrence Turner was assassinated within thirty-five to fifty yards of the house of appellant and on appellant's premises. There were ten shots fired according to the testimony, and his slayers took his body and buried it in a sink hole. The crime was kept concealed for about two days, when appellant made known the fact of the killing by calling up one J. E. ITill, coroner and ranger of Panola county, telling him that he must come over to his home and take charge 'of the body of Turner, saying at the time that the killing was done by his boy. A searching party went over and found Turner's body buried as above stated. Subsequently Will Eowler, the. appellant, his son, Richard Eowler, and his son-in-law, John Burnett, were arrested and charged with murder. Pilchard Eowler and John Burnett were tried separately from the appellant. The appellant was convicted, given a life sentence in the penitentiary, and from this conviction appeals.
Since one of the main assignments of error is predicated on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction it is necessary to review the evidence tending to show complicity on the part of appellant. The facts are as follows: It seems that some time in the year, 1901, several young men, the deceased being one of them, were engaged in getting out staves in the neighborhood where lived appellant, and procured board with him. Appellant had several daughters, and, the young people being mutually attracted, it was but a short while until one of the young men eloped with one of them. The eloping daughter was quite young at the time1, and the father was very angry about it. Subsequently another of his daughters married another of the young men; but this marriage was at home, and apparently consented to by the father. But appel lant seems to have been very indignant at these marriages, ánd seems to have harbored much ill will toward all these young-men on account thereof. Lawrence Turner, the deceased, also fell in love with a third daughter, whose name was Bettie, and she seemed equally attracted toward him. After a while deceased quit boarding in the house of appellant and moved into another county, but continued his attentions to Miss Bettie, occasionally writing to her. About the 1st of July, 1908, intending to return to Panola county to visit his sweetheart, the deceased came back, and on Sunday night, the 5th of July, was shot down near her home and within thirty-five or fifty yards of her. The actual killing is shown to have been committed by Kichard Fowler, her brother, and John Burnett, her brother-in-law, and, respectively, the son and son-in-law of the appellant. The killing took place about 10 o;clock at night, within thirty-five or fifty yards of where Will Fowler was seated, and the record shows that he never thought enough of it to make any inquiry as to what the shooting was about, though the killing was on his premises and ten shots were fired.
The theory of the state is that there was a conspiracy between all the defendants to murder Lawrence Turner; and, while the actual killing was done by Kichard Fowler and John Burnett, it was in pursuance of the preconcerted plan of all these parties to assassinate this young man. The contention of the defense is that the appellant not only did not participate in the actual killing, but that he knew nothing about it whatever before it occurred. It is the state's theory that the killing was. done in order to prevent the elopement of Bettie Fowler with Lawrence Turner, and that this was the only motive for the killing, and that the assassination was in pursuance of previous threats made by appellant, and that appellant not only knew that the killing was to occur, but procured his son and son-in-law to do the work.
The testimony of John Burnett, the son-in-law of appellant, was that appellant had nothing to do. \yith the killing, was utterly ignorant of it, and that they killed Lawrence Turner in order to keep him from debauching Bettie Fowler. It is shown in the testimony that appellant was violently opposed to his daughter marrying Turner, and stated to his daughter Bettie that if she married Lawrence Turner he would "put them both under the sod." It is shown that he had stated that, if any of these stave men undertook to marry' any more of his daughters, he would kill them. When arrested, he told the justice of the peace making the arrest that he wanted him to be as light as possible, and further said that "what we done we done through ignorance." On the following morning he stated, "What we done, we had it to do; and you would have done the same thing we done."
A pair of trousers, which were described by the witnesses as belonging to appellant, were discovered shortly after the killing, with other garments, in a bloody condition, hidden in a treetop a few hundred yards from appellant's residence and on his premises. When all these ten shots were fired within thirty to fifty yards of him on the night of the killing, he made no remark and asked no questions, though' the record shows conclusively that all there knew what happened. Early on the morning of the killing he was seen coming from the general direction where the hidden clothing was found. On the evening of the killing, it is testified by his daughter that he was talking to his son, and his son seemed to be very much bothered. He directed the searching party to the place where the body might be found, and seemed, so far as his testimony shows, as conversant with the details as any of the other parties charged with this crime. The son-in-law went over to appellant's house about 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the killing, and his gun had been carried over there on the Friday or Saturday before. On the day before the killing, and while deceased was in appellant's house visiting the daughter, he sent word by one Collier to the justice of the peace of that district warning the justice not to marry Turner and his daughter. • Appellant then stated that there had not been any trouble, but there might be trouble, and bad trouble.
John Burnett declared that Turner was killed "to keep him from ruining that girl," and because Turner had written for the girl to meet him, and yet the letter complained of was written on the 4th day of June; the killing taking place on the 5th day of July. They had known of the letter for three weeks, had permitted young Turner to come to the house to see Bettie Fowler on the 4th of July, Richard Fowler had invited Turner to stay all night at the house on the night of the 4th, not another thing had occurred to arouse suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of Turner and Bettie Fowler, and while Turner is in the house the appellant is sending word to the justice not to marry them, and threatening bad trouble if he did. At the very time that all this was going on the gun of John Burnett was around the premises for the purpose of killing Turner, and taken there by Richard Fowler, the one who had offered the hospitality of his home for the night of the 4th.
There is no evidence in the case showing that any improper relations ever had existed between Bettie Fowler and deceased. The jury believed that the killing was done for the sole purpose of preventing deceased and Bettie Fowler from eloping, and the facts fully warranted this belief. It is a fair and logical deduction from the evidence that the killing was planned beforehand between all of the parties charged with the crime. On the trial of the case the defense offered in evidence the letter written by deceased to' Bettie Fowler on June 4, 1908. It was claimed in the testimony that appellant did not know of the letter, and it was stated by the defense that the object of introducing this letter was to show that there had been improper relations existing between deceased and Bettie Fowler, influencing Richard Fowler and John Burnett to kill him, but that the existence of this letter was unknown to appellant. It is contended that a knowledge of this letter fur nislied a motive on the part of the son and son-in-law to do the killing unknown to appellant, and it is contended that this corroborates the theory that there was no conspiracy to do the killing in so far as appellant is concerned. This letter was excluded by the court, and this is urged as a reason for reversing this judgment.
Looking at the complete record, we do not think this judgment should be reversed, even if it be conceded that the letter was admissible, which in this case we do not concede, since it utterly fails to prove that which it was offered to prove. There is no proof of debauchery to be found in this letter. Taking the whole case through, the deed was a diabolical one, and the jury were fully warranted in taking their view of the facts that all were equally guilty of the crime and that the killing was done to prevent the elopement.
We do not deem it necessary to pursue each single assignment of error in this case. It would unnecessarily protract this opinion and serve no purpose. An examination of the instructions shows that the case was fairly presented on the law.
Affirmed.