Baxter v. State

• Decision Date: 20 June 1955
• Docket Number: Nos. 4800-4806,s. 4800-4806
• Citation: 281 S.W.2d 931,225 Ark. 239
• Parties: Walter BAXTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 931

281 S.W.2d 931

225 Ark. 239

Walter BAXTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

Nos. 4800-4806.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 20, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1955.

Virgil Roach Moncrief, John W. Moncrief, Stuttgart, for appellant.

Tom Gentry, Atty. Gen., Thorp Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ROBINSON, Justice.

Appellant Walter Baxter was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death for the killing of Bert O. Burbanks, town marshal and police chief of DeWitt. Baxter roomed at the home of Mrs. Sally Bittner. On the day of the homicide, he had some trouble with his landlady resulting in a neighbor reporting the disturbance to the police. In response to this call, Burbanks went to the Bittner home and while at the front door he was shot and killed by Baxter.

Baxter claims that he had been persecuted by Burbanks; that Burbanks had stopped him on numerous occasions without just cause and searched him, apparently looking for illegal liquor. Appellant contends that at the time of the killing the officer was attempting to arrest him illegally; that Burbanks, while trying to make the arrest, reached for his gun; and that he (Baxter) fired the fatal shot in self-defense. On the other hand, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

On appeal, there are numerous assignments of error. It is contended that there was error in qualifying the jury on the death penalty, but this was done in accordance with the statute. Ark.Stat. § 43-1920. Furthermore, if the court erred in excusing any particular juror, that would not be ground for reversal. Turner v. State, Ark., 275 S.W.2d 24. Appellant also says the court erred in failing to keep the jury together, but this was a matter within the discretion of the court. Ark.Stat. § 43-2121. Appellant further contends that the court erred in permitting the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to read the indictment to the jury, but this procedure is authorized by Ark.Stat. § 43-2110.

It is insisted that the court erred in failing to give defendant's instruction No. 6 as follows: 'If the deceased was about to arrest or attempting to arrest the defendant for this misdemeanor not committed in his presence and without a warrant and if this defendant resisted such an arrest and, in so doing, took the life of the deceased, then this defendant is not guilty of murder in either the first or second degree. In such case, the defendant could not be guilty of any crime greater than manslaughter.' This instruction is not a correct statement of the law, and was properly refused. According to this instruction, it would be possible for any person, with malice aforethought and after premeditation and deliberation, to kill an officer attempting to arrest him, for a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the officer, and still not be guilty of any crime greater than manslaughter. In a situation of this kind, the law in this State is clearly announced in Coats v. State, 101 Ark. 51, 141 S.W. 197, 201, where this court said:

'An illegal arrest is no more than a trespass to the person. 'The attempt to take away one's liberty is not such an aggression as may be resisted with death. Nothing short of an endeavor to destroy life will justify the taking of life.' 1 Bishop's New Criminal Law, § 868; Creighton v. Commonwealth, 84 Ky. 103, 4 Am.St.Rep. 193; 25 Am. & Ency. of Law, p. 278, and cases cited; Wharton on the Law of Homicide (3d Ed.) § 407; Roberson v. State, 43 Fla. 156, 29 So. 535, 52 L.R.A. 751.

'Mr. Bishop says that the reason why a man may not oppose an attempt on his liberty by the same extreme measures permissible in an attempt on his life may be because liberty can be secured by a resort to the law.

'So it appears that, even in a case where the defendant kills an officer in resisting an illegal arrest, he can only oppose force with force as in other cases where he is assaulted, and, if the circumstances of the killing show that he acted with malice and premeditation, he is guilty of murder in the first degree. In short, he is placed in no better position than is any other person assaulted, and can only kill his assailant, when the danger appears to him as a reasonable person so urgent and pressing that he is in danger of losing his own life or receiving great bodily injury.'

The court said in Edgin v. Talley, 169 Ark. 662, 276 S.W. 591, 594, 42 A.L.R. 1194: 'Although he might have believed that he was being illegally arrested, it was his duty to have submitted to the officers.'

After the introduction of the evidence was completed, the defendant requested that the jury inspect the scene of the alleged crime. Thereupon, the court said: 'Gentlemen of the jury, it has been requested that you visit the scene of this alleged killing. The officers will go with you. They will point out where Mr. Burbanks fell. They are not to discuss this case with you. If they know, they will point out the room where this alleged shot came from. You can view this room. Don't discuss the case with the officers or anyone else. After you have viewed the premises you will report back to this courtroom.'

Ark.Stat. § 43-2119 is as follows: 'When, in the opinion of the court, it is necessary that the jury should view the place in which the offense is charged to have been committed, or in which any other material fact occurred, it may order the jury to be conducted in a body, in the custody of proper officers, to the place, which must be shown to them by the judge, or a person appointed by the court for that purpose.' Section 43-2120 provides: 'The officer[s] must be sworn to suffer no person to speak or communicate with the jury on any subject connected with the trial, nor do so themselves except the mere showing of the place to be viewed, and return them into court without unnecessary delay, or at a specified time.'

Ark.Stat. § 43-2120 was not complied with, and the officers conducting the jury to the scene of the alleged crime were not sworn in accordance with the statute. The defendant made no request that the officers be sworn as the statute provides.

Was there error in the failure to comply with the statute and, if so, was it such an error as could not be waived by the defendant? In Whitley v. State, 114 Ark. 243, 169 S.W. 952, 956, the officers conducting the jury to the place of the alleged crime were not sworn in accordance with the statute. It was held, however, that a previous oath administered to the officers in charge of the jury sufficed. The court said:

'The sheriff and his deputy had been specially sworn in relation to their duties of keeping the jury together during the progress of the trial, and had been instructed not to allow the jurors to communicate among themselves, and they had been specially instructed not to communicate with the jury themselves, nor to allow any one else to do so. * * * True, no special oath was administered to the sheriff or his deputy on the particular occasion of sending the jury to make a view, but the record shows that the sheriff had the jury in charge the night before 'under proper oath and instructions as to the guarding of the jury,' and that the court 'instructed the officers that they were under the same oath and instructions about guarding the jury as they were the night before, and not to permit any discussion of the case while they were viewing the scene of the killing or while they were absent from the courtroom.''

But, in the case at bar, the defendant's motion that the jury be kept together in charge of an officer was denied. Hence, the jury had been permitted to separate and were not under the charge of an officer. The record does not show what officers were...