Court Opinion

ID: 9670138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:15:30.356027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.821975
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
We have made corrections in our opinion that will not be set forth, since they in no wise alter the conclusions already reached. We do, however, set forth the following extensions to the facts.
In brief in support of appellant’s application for rehearing counsel for appellant points out that the automobile which had been bombed belonged to Mr. Maddux, the Assistant Superintendent, rather than to Mr. Humphrey, the Superintendent, as inadvertently set out in our opinion.
Counsel has also set forth under the heading “Omissions” several matters which did not appear in our opinion. In setting forth the facts we did not attempt to set them forth in detail but only to an extent sufficient to depict the situation generally, and afford a full review should the appeal be processed further. This for the reason that innumerable witnesses testified on both sides, and to have detailed the testimony, much of which was merely corroborative, would have unduly extended an already lengthy opinion.
However, knowing the earnestness of the able counsel for defense, we are treating the *571'matters listed under “Omissions” as a request for an extension of our opinion to include the matters mentioned by counsel.
In quoting from the testimony of State’s witness R. W. Smith, we set forth: “At that time I noticed all the men coming out •of the woods there across the road. And I hollered for our men to stop shooting.” Counsel states, and correctly, that immediately thereafter Smith further testified: “It looked to me like we was being ambushed and they was going to murder us anyways. I told the men to stop shooting ■and the shooting stopped.”
These conclusionary observations by Smith do not add, as we see it, anything ■to his earlier testimony set forth by us.
In setting forth the testimony of the appellant, Peyton, we quoted him as saying ■that State’s witness, Smith said something ■to the men who approached him as Smith ■drove up to the entrance. “There was a lot ■of loud talking.” We then parenthetically interpolated that several of the defense witnesses testified that what Smith had said to the men was: “What are you sons-of-■bitches doing here ?”
In addition to the version of Smith’s ■statement as set out above, three of the •defense witnesses testified in addition that what Smith said was that he “would kill every black son-of-a-bitch that was up there,” or that he yelled, “Kill those yellow bellied sons-of-bitches.”
Counsel argues that in Smith’s testimony he denied only the statement attributed to him as set forth in our opinion, leaving un■denied the statements attributed to him by the three witnesses above mentioned. In this connection however, we note that while in his testimony Smith denied only the specific statement as set forth in our opinion, he also further testified he had never sworn in his life.
Opinion corrected; application overruled.