Court Opinion

ID: 9675526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:56:24.953868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:35.139066
License: Public Domain

Sam Robinson, Associate Justice (dissenting). The evidence in this case proves that the defendant killed three people in deliberate, cold-blooded murder. He was tried for one of the murders; the jury found him guilty as charged, and fixed the penalty at life in the penitentiary. In all probability, the life sentence was given instead of death in the electric chair because of the immoral conduct of the three people that appellant shot to death with a repeating shotgun. The trial judge was of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to send the case to the jury on the question of whether the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree. Twelve jurors selected with the approval of the defendant, from among the residents of the county where the crime was committed, after seeing all of the witnesses including the defendant, and listening to the testimony, and considering the law as given-to them by instructions of the court, unanimously agreed that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree. It is hard for me to see how the jury could arrive at any other verdict if they did what they swore they would do, and that was to try the case according to the law and evidence, and render a true verdict thereon. In stating that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the first degree murder verdict, the majority has apparently overlooked and failed to consider important evidence in the record. In fact, the majority does not mention any of the evidence favorable to the State’s case and which goes to prove murder in the first degree, although, in my opinion, the record is replete with such evidence. It appears from the majority opinion that the only evidence considered in setting aside the jury verdict is the testimony of the defendant. To say the least, such testimony can hardly he unbiased. Moreover, the defendant’s own testimony proves him guilty of first degree murder. The majority stresses the fact that there is no direct evidence proving premeditation and deliberation, which are necessary elements of murder in the first degree. A murderer who kills his victim after premeditation and deliberation rarely commits such crime in the presence of witnesses. If the State must produce eye witnesses to such crimes in order to get a conviction, then law enforcement in this State, as to such crimes, is virtually impossible. All the murderer has to do is catch his victim alone, kill him, and then testify there was no premeditation and deliberation. In the case at bar, however, the defendant did not find his victim alone; there were eye witnesses, but the defendant surmounted that difficulty merely by killing the witnesses. He was tried in this case, not for killing his first victim, but for killing one of the witnesses to the first crime. Now for a consideration of the evidence in detail: On the morning of the 20th day of October, 1956, at about 6:10, Bob Bush, while on his way to work on the Sulphur Springs road about 3 1/2 miles Southwest of Crossett, saw an automobile parked on its proper side of the road. The parking lights were burning on the parked car, and it was headed toward Crossett. As Bush approached the parked car he noticed a man lying in the road near the left door of the ear. Bush slowed down, and as he passed the parked automobile he noticed what appeared to be two injured people in the car. He got out of his automobile and found that the man on the ground was badly injured, or dead. He had been shot with a shotgun. It developed that the man on the ground was wounded seriously, and he died a short time later. Sitting on the right side of the front seat of the two-door parked car was a woman who had been killed by a shotgun blast to the left side of her head. Seated on the right side of the rear seat, directly behind the woman, was a man who had been killed by two blasts from a shotgun; one load of shot had struck him in the left side toward the back, and one load of shot had struck him in the back of the head. Officers were notified and, upon their arrival at the scene of the crime, they ascertained that the man on the ground was Fred Watkins, the dead woman on the front seat was Hattie Mae Williams, and the dead man on the rear seat was George Wells. The defendant in this case, Frank Simmons, was tried for the murder of George Wells, who was the man sitting on the rear seat of the car where he was killed by being shot twice with a 16 gauge shotgun loaded with No. 6 shot; one load of shot struck him in the side and the other in the back of the head. The defendant lived on the Sulphur Springs road, a little over one half mile from the scene of the crimes. In the course of the investigation the officers tallied to him concerning the killings; he denied any knowledge of who' might have committed the crimes, but admitted that he owned a 16 gauge shotgun, and had some shells loaded with No. 6 shot. The officers obtained the gun from the defendant and sent it, with other 16 gauge shotguns which they had located in the community, and empty shells found at the scene of the killing, to State Police headquarters at Little Rock to be examined by a ballistics expert in an effort to determine if the empty shells found at the scene of the crimes had been fired from any of the guns the officers had obtained. Upon an examination by an expert it was learned that the empty shells found at the scene of the killing had been fired by the gun belonging to the defendant, Frank Simmons. When Simmons was confronted with this evidence, he admitted killing all three of the people heretofore mentioned. In his testimony at the trial Simmons attempted to justify- the crimes by asserting self-defense. He testified that Watkins got out of the car and that he (the defendant) thought himself in great danger and gave that as his excuse for killing Watkins. He further testified that Wells leaned forward in the car and he, the defendant, shot Wells. But the defendant gave no explanation for shooting him twice, once in the back of the head and once in the side. The defendant testified that he then became alarmed and ran from the scene of the killing, but returned a short time later, and the woman said to him: “You Grod-dam son-of-a-bitch you kill me;” and then the defendant said, “and I did.” In my opinion, the circumstances alone are sufficient to support a verdict of murder in the first degree, and when the testimony of the defendant, given in his own behalf at his trial, is considered along with the circumstances, not only is murder in the first degree proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but is proved beyond any shadow of a doubt. Here are some of the circumstances that shed light on the occurrence, as will be hereafter pointed out: The victims’ car was parked on the shoulder of the road about 1 foot from the ditch on its proper side of the road. The road is 17 feet wide. There was ample space for other cars to pass. Only the parking lights on the car were burning. The first person the defendant killed was Watkins. When shot, Watkins was standing against the car door, which was closed. His blood ran down the side of the door. The defendant fired four times, each shot taking effect. He was standing close to the car when three of the shots were fired; three of the empty shells which had been fired from defendant’s 16 gauge gun were found within 4 feet of the left door of the victims’ car. The back windows were up (closed) on the car in which Wells was sitting on the back seat, and Hattie Mae Williams was sitting on the front seat. ' The windows were not broken. Defendant’s gnn barrel must have been practically sticking through the open window on the left front door. The woman was sitting on the right side of the front seat and she was shot in the left temple. Wells, for whose murder the defendant was tried, must have turned away when the woman was shot, as he was shot in the left side near the back, and another load of shot hit him in the back of the head. Although defendant claims he was only going to call the officers and report the immoral conduct of his victims, he placed his shotgun in his car. Without a doubt he put the gun in his car with the intention of shooting someone. He makes no claim that he was going squirrel hunting when he put the loaded gun in his car. The persons he intended to kill were the persons he did kill. No one else was involved. This fact in itself is sufficient to make a case for the jury on the issue of first degree murder. All of the victims of the killings were unarmed. The following is the defendant’s testimony as to the actual killings: “I went and got my car and cranked up and backed up and came on down. They had done moved from where they were at. I heard the car when it cranked up and I thought sure they were coming again. A little branch down the road, a little bridge, and they were just over that bridge, just barely room enough for a car to pass with a pretty good driver. I squeezed by and just as I got even they cranked up and I just cut across the road coming by and I held the center of the road and I seen they were .driving past and I pulled over and they just whipped over right ahead of me and stopped. I hit my brakes and pulled over to the left, going past them, and one man jumped out of the ear, the man driving jumped out of the car, and got right in the road and said, ‘Stop, stop, you Goddam son-of-a-bitch. Where you going?’ I said, ‘I am going to call the law to you all.’ He said, ‘Yeah, you are going to call the law — Goddam you, don’t you know I am going to kill you?’ Nothing to do hut protect my life. This other man said, ‘Kill the son-of-a-bitch, kill him.’ He got up, and I don’t know whether it was a 2-door or á-door, and he came up and stuck his head over the front seat of the car and I shot them both.” Later, he returned and killed the woman, as above mentioned. The defendant’s testimony, when viewed in the light of the proven facts in the case, shows conclusively that he did the killing because he was mad; he acted with malice, after premeditation and deliberation. According to the evidence, it was not necessary that he kill any one in order to protect himself. The undisputed evidence shows that the victims’ car was parked on the side of the road, with the parking lights on. There was ample room for other cars to pass. In fact, according to the testimony of the defendant, he had passed the car occupied by those he killed before he ever stopped his car. It was not necessary for him to stop his car at all if he were going to a telephone to report ihe conduct of the victims of his anger. The jury would have been completely justified in disregarding his statement that he was going to a telephone, but, even giving him the benefit of telling the truth on that point, there was nothing to hinder him from continuing on his way to the phone. He was in his automobile, the other car had stopped; he had passed the other car; there was nothing to keep defendant from continuing on his way; he was between the other car and the telephone. The victims of the killings were unarmed; there is no contention that they made a display of any kind of weapon — of course, they could not make such a display because they had no weapon. It appears from the evidence that this is what happened: The defendant had made arrangements to kill hogs that morning; in all probability, his story about squirrel hunting is made out of the whole cloth, and not a word of truth in it. Ordinarily, a person does not go squirrel hunting for a short period of time and it is not likely that the defendant would go squirrel hunting on a morning when he had made previous arrangements to kill hogs'. The evidence justifies the conclusion that defendant came upon the two men and the woman parked in an automobile on the side of the road. They probably gave him a cursing, and the defendant simply went home, got his shotgun, followed them up and killed them. According to the undisputed evidence, at the time the defendant stopped his car and got out, the victims of his anger were in a car parked on the proper side of the road — on the shoulder of the road only 12 inches from the ditch. The parking lights w.ere burning. According to the defendant’s testimony, he passed the car and there was nothing to prevent him from continuing on his way to a telephone if he were going to a telephone. But, instead of continuing on his way, he stopped, got out of his car, and started shooting. Undoubtedly Watkins was standing in the road, leaning against the door of his parked car when he was killed. He was found in the road at the door of the car, and his blood had run down the door. In order to kill the other two occupants of the car it was necessary that the defendant walk back to. a point where he could stick the shotgun through the open window of the left front door,- because the windshield was not broken and the rear windows of the car were not broken, although they were closed.. A repeating shotgun does not eject the shells to the front. They are ejected to' the side and rear of the one using' the weapon. The empty shells were found within four feet of the left front door of the car. This proves without a doubt that the'defendant was standing right at the front door when he "shot- the woman and Wells. It will be recalled he was' tried' for killing Wells. Not only did the. defendant shoot Wells once, but he shot him twice; either shot would have caused instant death. At that close range a shotgun is the most deadly and destructive of any gun. Wells was shot in the báck of the head and could not have been making any movement toward .the defendant.' The jury was completely justified, by the evidence in the case, in reaching the conclusion that the killing was committed in cold blood, with malice aforethought after deliberation and premeditation. The jury system may not be- perfect, but it is certainly the best system that has ever been devised by man up to this hour. The defendant in this case had a fair trial before a fair judge, a fair prosecuting attorney, and a fair jury in the county in which the crime was committed, where the defendant had lived, all of his life; and he was defended by most able counsel. It is clear from the record that nothing was said or done to arouse passion or prejudice against the defendant in any manner. The killing of the two men and the woman was so closely connected in point of time as to be a part of one transaction, and hence, all of the evidence relating to the various killings was admissible in evidence. The manner of the killing of the woman in itself shows the defendant’s frame of mind at the time he committed the crimes. He makes no contention that the woman was making any movement or display against him in any manner whatever. In her horror as to the crimes that had been committed, she merely said, why don’t you kill me? This was at a time after the defendant had left the scene and returned, and his reaction to the woman’s question was: “And I did.”, meaning that he deliberately shot her down in cold-blooded murder. He did shoot her down in deliberate, cold-blooded murder, but the circumstances indicate that he killed her before he killed Wells, who was sitting in the back seat. The overwhelming evidence in this case supports the jury verdict and, in my opinion, the judgment should be affirmed. Therefore, I respectfully dissent, and I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice George Rose Smith joins in this dissent.