Hicks v. United States

Facts

John Hicks and Stand Rowe, both Cherokee Indians, were jointly indicted for murdering Andrew J. Colvard, a white man, by shooting him on the 13th of February, 1892. Rowe was killed by officers trying to arrest him, so Hicks was tried alone. Before the shooting, both men had been eluding United States marshals who held arrest warrants for them, and both carried Winchester rifles to a dance at Jim Rowe's house in the Cherokee Nation. Colvard, who had married a Cherokee woman, appeared to be very friendly with both men. The next morning he repeatedly urged Rowe and Hicks to go home with him. Later Colvard and Hicks rode down a road toward Rowe, who was waiting on horseback. Witnesses about one hundred yards away saw Rowe twice raise his rifle at Colvard and lower it. They saw and heard Hicks laugh. They heard Hicks tell Colvard to take off his hat and die like a man. Rowe then fired and killed Colvard. The government's evidence showed that Hicks did not fire the shot. Hicks and Rowe rode off together. Hicks testified that he had tried to persuade Rowe not to shoot, denied using the words, and said he left with Rowe out of fear for his life.

Issues

1. Did the trial judge err in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting without telling it that the accused's words or acts of encouragement must have been used with the intention of encouraging the killing?
2. Did the judge err in telling the jury that a person present to aid or abet a murder, who did nothing because help was not needed, was guilty, when the evidence showed no previous conspiracy or arrangement?
3. Did the judge's instruction on weighing the accused's own testimony amount to substantial error, and was the exception to the charge too broad for the Court to consider?

Holding

The charge was erroneous because it let the jury convict Hicks without finding that he intended his words to encourage Rowe, and because it said presence to aid without action was enough when no evidence showed a previous conspiracy or arrangement. The testimony instruction also seemed to the Court a substantial error, though standing alone it might not have been reversible. The exception sufficiently raised these questions.