Burnett v. State
Citation | 96 S.W. 1007,80 Ark. 225 |
Parties | BURNETT v. STATE |
Decision Date | 08 October 1906 |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court; Styles T. Rowe, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
W. M Cravens, Jo Johnson and F. A. Youmans, for appellant.
1. Instruction numbered 7 is erroneous in that it sets out disjunctively the elements necessary to constitute appellant a principal offender. 122 Cal. 486. It is not a correct statement of the law as regards an accessory to the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
It is also erroneous in that it is not applicable to the facts in the case. 79 Iowa 460.
2. Instructions 18 and 19 are also erroneous. Kirby's Digest, § 1563. Under these instructions the mere fact of defendant's being present was sufficient to warrant his conviction.
Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, and G. W. Hendricks, for appellee.
Eli and Oliver Burnett, brothers, were jointly indicted in Scott Circuit Court for murder in the second degree, and Eli Burnett was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
There was evidence to have justified a verdict of murder in the second degree, voluntary manslaughter or an acquittal, according to which version of the killing of Arie Smith be accepted as the truth, but not a scintilla of evidence of involuntary manslaughter, and no instruction should have been given on that subject. The error of the court in submitting that question has brought about a lower sentence for appellant than he otherwise could have received. Necessarily, the evidence justifying an acquittal was rejected when the jury found this verdict; and if they had not been erroneously authorized to have found this degree of homicide, he would have been convicted of a higher grade.
Appellant contends there was error in the trial court refusing to give three instructions requested by him, but the court is of opinion that so much of the refused instructions as is correct was covered by those given.
The principal contention of appellant is in the giving of these three instructions:
The point is that in each of them a conviction was justified if appellant, "stood by, aided, abetted or assisted Oliver Burnett."
These instructions are in the language of the statutes, sections 1560, 1561, 1563, Kirby's Digest. These...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aluminum Company of North America v. Ramsey
... ... 603 ... 2. The ... constitutionality of the act abolishing the fellow servant ... defense has been settled in this State. Ozan Lumber Co ... v. Biddie, 87 Ark. 587. Such legislation is also ... sustained by the United States Supreme Court. 127 U.S. 205; ... 127 ... Co. v. Hardie, 87 Ark. 475, 113 S.W. 31. A ... general objection is insufficient to point out an ambiguity ... in an instruction. Burnett v. State, 80 ... Ark. 225, 96 S.W. 1007, and cases cited ... 4 ... Counsel for appellant insists that the court erred in ... ...
-
Rogers v. State
... ... imprisonment. The instructions on the lower grades of ... homicide, therefore, were in the appellant's favor, and ... he can not complain of the error of the court in giving them ... The exact point is ruled by the cases of Vasser v ... State, 75 Ark. 373, 87 S.W. 635; Burnett v ... State, 80 Ark. 225, 96 S.W. 1007. See also ... Paxton v. State, 108 Ark. 316, 157 S.W ... 396; Glenn v. State, 71 Ark. 86, 71 S.W ... 254; McGough v. State, 119 Ark. 57, 177 ... S.W. 398 ... 6 ... Errors are predicated upon certain rulings of the ... ...
-
Clayton v. State
...of the indictment was sufficient. Sec. 2518, C. & M. Digest; 100 Ark. 409; 111 Ark. 180. No proper objection was made to it in any event. 80 Ark. 225; 17 C. J. 53, par. 3330, 50, 3328; 51, par. 33, 29, 55. No error in admitting evidence of the confession nor in permitting the defendant to b......
-
Rogers v. State
...error of the court in giving them. The exact point is ruled by the case of Vasser v. State, 75 Ark. 373-381, 87 S. W. 635; Burnett v. State, 80 Ark. 225, 96 S. W. 1007. See, also, Paxton v. State, 108 Ark. 316-320, 157 S. W. 396; Glenn v. State, 71 Ark. 86, 71 S. W. 254; McGough v. State, 1......