Bramlett v. State

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BUTLER, J.
• Citation: Bramlett v. State, 43 S.W.2d 364, 184 Ark. 808 (Ark. 1931)
• Decision Date: 23 November 1931
• Docket Number: 13
• Parties: BRAMLETT v. STATE

43 S.W.2d 364

184 Ark. 808

BRAMLETT v. STATE

No. 13

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 23, 1931

Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; John L. Bledsoe, Judge affirmed.

Affirmed.

Jackson & Blackford, for appellant.

Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Pat Mehaffy, Assistant, for appellee.

OPINION

BUTLER, J.

An indictment was returned against Jeff Bramlett by the grand jury of Randolph County charging him with the crime of manslaughter, committed as follows: "The said Jeff Bramlett in the county and State aforesaid, on or about the 9th day of August, A. D., 1930, unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously did kill one Cecil Mitchell by striking and beating him, the said Cecil Mitchell, and from the effects of said striking and beating him, the said Cecil Mitchell did die on the 9th day of August, 1930," etc. To this indictment the defendant interposed a general and special demurrer, which was overruled. The defendant was duly arraigned, tried and convicted of the crime of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the State penitentiary. From that judgment is this appeal.

1. The demurrer to the indictment challenged its sufficiency because it did not state the manner in which the deceased was killed or the instrument or thing with which he might have been struck or beaten from the effects of which he later died. The case of Ray v. State, 102 Ark. 594, 145 S.W. 881, and the cases therein cited are relied on by the appellant to sustain the objection urged to the indictment in the instant case. In the Ray case the rule is laid down that an indictment must contain such a description of the facts and circumstances as to constitute the offense charged so that the person accused may be informed of the specific charge which he is called upon to answer, and the court and jury the issue they are to try. The indictment before the court in that case charged that the killing was done with a certain gun "loaded with powder and leaden bullets and shot." Applying the rule to this language the court held that it was defective because it did not allege the manner of the killing, whether he was shot with the loaded gun or killed by its use in some other manner.

We have held that where the indictment alleges that the deceased came to his death at the hands of defendant in some manner and by the use of weapons to the jury unknown, this allegation is regarded as sufficient. If information contained in allegations of that nature is sufficient, it is difficult to perceive how the indictment in the instant case is defective. Formerly great particularity was required in setting forth the manner of the death of the deceased and the means by which death was inflicted, but it is the modern tendency of courts to relax the rigidity of requirements in indictments, and the particular circumstances of the offense, under the modern practice and our statutes need not be charged unless they are necessary to constitute a complete offense (§ 3012, Crawford & Moses' Digest); and where the act charged as the offense is stated with such a degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment of conviction, the indictment is sufficient. Section 3013 Crawford & Moses' Digest.

As suggested by the Assistant Attorney General, the indictments in the Ray case, supra, and in the cases there cited, which were held to be defective, did not indicate the manner of the killing. In those indictments the instruments used were named, but the fault lay in failing to indicate in what manner such instruments were used as they might have produced death in being used in more than one way. This seems to be the reason for the support of those decisions. In the instant case, however, no instrument is named, but the manner in which death was inflicted is alleged with sufficient certainty, i. e., "by striking and beating him the said Cecil Mitchell from the effects of such striking and beating him the said Cecil Mitchell did die." No case of our own court has been cited directly in point, but in sustaining our view that the indictment was sufficient we refer with approval to Joyce on...