12 S.W. 563 (Ark. 1889), Crumpton v. State

• Citation: 52 Ark. 273,12 S.W. 563
• Docket Number: .
• Date: 30 November 1889
• Parties: CRUMPTON v. STATE
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Page 563

12 S.W. 563 (Ark. 1889)

52 Ark. 273

CRUMPTON

v.

STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 30, 1889

ERROR to Craighead Circuit Court, J. E. RIDDICK, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter on an indictment for murder in the first degree.

Affirmed.

N. W. Norton, for appellant.

1. The evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, especially of manslaughter, and the court erred in instructing the jury as to the law of manslaughter. 37 Ark. 436; 50 id., 506.

2. It was error to admit the evidence of Clears and Newcomb to contradict the witness King. The State was bound by the answer of King. Whart. Cr. Ev. (8 ed.), sec. 484; 1 Greenl. Ev. (13 ed.), sec. 449; 11 S.W. 106; 34 Ark. 480; Mansf. Dig., sec. 2902.

W. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, for appellee.

1. It was entirely proper for the court to submit to the jury the entire question, and was for them to say whether the killing being found, it was murder or manslaughter. 37 Ark. 433; 50 Ark. 506.

2. Though enmity or bias be the issue, the court may permit particular facts or conditions to be shown, to prove bias or interest of the witness after the predicate has been laid on his cross-examination, and he had denied their existence. 50 Pa. 319; 64 Ind. 400; 1 Parker Cr. Rep., 154; Greenl. Ev., sec. 450. See the rule in 34 Ark. 484, and 13 id., 800, 801. It is not a collateral question, but a very important one to prove the motives or temper of the witness, and not the reason for the motive.

OPINION

[52 Ark. 274] PER CURIAM.

During the trial of the appellant, a witness introduced by him was asked if he had not made certain statements, which, if made, tended to show that he felt an interest in the defendant's behalf. He denied that he had made the statements, and the State was permitted, against his objection, to prove that he had made them. The bias of one called to testify in a case is not a collateral matter. The testimony was competent. Butler v. State, 34 Ark. 480; Whar. Cr. Ev., sec. 485.

It is urged that the court erred in instructing the jury as to the law of manslaughter, against the appellant's objection.

We cannot say there was no testimony to justify a conviction of manslaughter. Affirm.