Bowman v. State
| Decision Date | 03 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | 4499 |
| Citation | 210 S.W.2d 798,213 Ark. 407 |
| Parties | Bowman v. State |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; Maupin Cummings, Judge.
Affirmed.
Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appellants, Roy and Vernon Bowman, brothers, on June 10, 1947, were charged in an information with the crime of first degree murder by shooting and killing with pistols, Clay D. Sampson June 9, 1947. A jury found each of them guilty of murder in the second degree and assessed the punishment of each at 12 years in the State Penitentiary. From the judgment is this appeal.
Only the State's brief is before us. Appellants have filed none and are not represented here by counsel.
Fifty-two assignments of alleged errors have been presented. We consider them in their order.
1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9
Assignments 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 question the sufficiency of the evidence.
The testimony in effect shows that appellants, along with seven or eight relatives, were living in a three-room tenant house on a farm near Goshen. This farm was rented and occupied by Clay Sampson, his wife, Nonie, and his daughter. The tenant house was about 100 yards from a much larger dwelling in which the Sampsons lived. Quarrels and bad feeling arose between the Sampsons and appellants, primarily from appellants' refusal to keep closed a yard gate of the Sampsons, after getting water from a well, through which gate stock would enter and damage Sampson's property. Sampson nailed up the gate and as a result, appellants cursed and abused Nonie Sampson and her daughter, and threatened "to kill every damn thing out there." Mrs. Sampson and her daughter conveyed these threats to Clay Sampson and the bad feeling between appellants and the Sampsons continued to mount until on June 9, 1947, appellants parked their truck in a road near a field where Clay Sampson was plowing corn. They got out of the truck and walked across the field to him, each armed with a loaded pistol. Mrs. Sampson observed their actions and thinking her husband in danger, procured an automatic shotgun and attempted to carry it to him. Just as she was trying to place it in his hands, each of the appellants began shooting. They fired seven or eight shots. Clay Sampson fell mortally wounded with a bullet through his brain, death resulting shortly thereafter. Mrs. Sampson fell, seriously but not fatally injured, with a bullet in her face. She was confined to a hospital for approximately two weeks. Appellants also threatened to kill an eyewitness, George Edward Toney, who had come upon the scene from a hay field a short distance away. Toney testified, in effect, that they cursed him and threatened his life because they told him he had seen and knew too much.
We think it unnecessary to detail more of the testimony. It speaks for itself and was more than ample to warrant the jury's verdict convicting appellants of second degree murder.
4
The fourth assignment questions the information on the ground that it contravenes the rights of appellants under the Constitution of Arkansas and the Constitution of the United States, and "particularly Amendments V and XIV of the Constitution of the United States." This very question was decided adversely to appellants' contention in the case of Penton v. State, 194 Ark. 503, 109 S.W.2d 131.
5
It is next argued (Assignment 5) that the court erred in refusing a continuance on account of an absent witness, Howard Bragg of Goshen. The record discloses that a subpoena was not issued for this witness and placed in the hands of the sheriff until the date of the trial, October 14, 1947, which was more than four months after the filing of the information and the arrest of appellants. In these circumstances, the court did not err. Proper diligence was not shown to have been exercised by appellants. "The granting or refusing of continuance is within the sound legal discretion of the court, and this court will not interfere where there has been no abuse of that discretion." Bailey v. State, 204 Ark. 376, 163 S.W.2d 141.
In Bullard v. State, 159 Ark. 435, 252 S.W 584, where a situation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanton v. State
...not be held to have abused its discretion in refusing to grant the motion. Bullard v. State, 159 Ark. 435, 252 S.W. 584; Bowman v. State, 213 Ark. 407, 210 S.W.2d 798; Gerlach v. State, 217 Ark. 102, 229 S.W.2d We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the case at bar. Ap......
-
Gerlach v. State
...of appellant. We have repeatedly held that in order to secure a continuance, as here, proper diligence must be shown, Bowman v. State, 213 Ark. 407, 210 S.W.2d 798, and that the granting or refusing of such motion is within the sound legal discretion of the trial court and this court will n......
-
Figeroa v. State, 5325
...not be held to have abused its discretion in refusing to grant the motion. Bullard v. State, 159 Ark. 435, 252 S.W. 584; Bowman v. State, 213 Ark. 407, 210 S.W.2d 798; Gerlach v. State, 217 Ark. 102, 229 S.W.2d While it is fundamental that a defendant in a criminal prosecution should be aff......
- Stane v. Mettetal