Bramlett v. State, 4228.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 4228.,4228. |
| Citation | 156 S.W.2d 226 |
| Parties | BRAMLETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Crittenden County; Zal B. Harrison, Special Judge.
Freeman Bramlett was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. B. Nance and A. B. Shafer, both of Marion, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Atty. Gen., annd John P. Streepey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The prosecuting attorney of the Second Judicial District of Arkansas, of which Crittenden county is a part, filed an information on June 11, 1941, in the circuit court of said county against the appellant, Freeman Bramlett, charging him with murder in the first degree by shooting and killing Charlie Goad on June 9, 1941, with a shotgun then and there held in his hands after premeditation and deliberation and with malice aforethought.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder in the first degree as charged in the information, and both parties announcing ready for trial a jury of 12 men was duly empanelled as the law directs and sworn to try the cause and, after hearing the evidence, instructions of the court, and argument of counsel, returned the following verdict, to-wit:
Motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, after which a judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict, from which is this appeal.
The first assignment of error insisted upon for reversal of the judgment is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. It is argued that the evidence, viewed in the most favorable light to the state, fails to show premeditation, deliberation and malice on the part of appellant at the time he shot and killed Charlie Goad.
A definition of "premeditation" and "deliberation" in 2 Brill's Encyclopedia, Criminal Law, ch. 19, § 644, was adopted and approved by this court in the case of Weldon v. State, 168 Ark. 534, 270 S.W. 968, 972, as follows: "Premeditation and deliberation may be inferred as a matter of fact from the circumstances of the case, such as the character of the weapons used, the nature of the wounds inflicted, the acts conduct, and language of the accused, and the like."
Malice, which is a necessary ingredient of murder in the first degree, may be express or implied. And this court has decided in a number of cases that the law will presume malice from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a homicide unless the existence of malice is overcome by the proof of the killing. Some of the cases so holding are: King v. State, 117 Ark. 82, 173 S.W. 852; Reed v. State, 102 Ark. 525, 145 S.W. 206; Sweeney v. State, 35 Ark. 585; Howard v. State, 34 Ark. 433; and Fields v. State, 154 Ark. 188, 241 S.W. 901.
Keeping these definitions and rules in mind in order to ascertain whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of murder in the first degree, we herein set out a chronological statement of the facts viewed in the most favorable light to the state.
C. H. Bond had been lending Erby Bramlett and appellant money with which to make crops in Crittenden county about 10 miles from the town of Marion. Erby Bramlett and appellant lived near each other in separate homes. It seems that Freeman Bramlett had not been doing his full part in the cultivation of the crops, and there had been some discussion between appellant and Bond relative to this matter. Late in the afternoon of June 9, C. H. Bond in the company of Charlie Goad and Cecil Goodman went out to see Erby Bramlett and the crop and stopped at the home of appellant and called to him several times and attempted to get in the house. Appellant did not answer their calls and did not open the door for them, although they thought they saw him lying on the bed in the house. After failing to get in the house, the doors being locked, they went over to see the crops and to talk to Erby Bramlett.
Mrs. Joe Hamlett, who lived about 100 yards on the other side of the Bramlett home, stated that on the morning of the 9th of June she noticed appellant and his wife sitting on their front porch about sun-up; that she saw a car leaving the Bramlett home and could not tell who was in it, but that she knew Mr. Bramlett was driving; that the next time she saw appellant during the day was when he came to the pump to get some water, but the pump was not working; that she just saw him as he was leaving the pump and later saw him come out of his home and shoot at a hawk; and that still later she noticed C. H. Bond, Cecil Goodman, and Charlie Goad drive up to the Bramlett home; that they stayed there about 5 or 10 minutes and then went away; that between 6 and 7 o'clock she went to her brother's home and that when she got opposite appellant's home the buckets she was carrying knocked together and made a noise, and that appellant raised up from the bed in the north room and looked out at her; that after she returned from her brother's she heard a shot and after the shooting Mrs. Bramlett, appellant's wife, ran up to her.
A colored man by the name of Mitchell testified that during the afternoon appellant came up to where he was plowing and asked him if he wanted a drink of whiskey and that he told him no, and that after offering him the whiskey appellant went back home.
Miss Helen Davis was the step-daughter of appellant. She was 18 years old. She testified that about 8 o'clock, p. m., on June 9, she and her grandfather, Mr. Ross, and her mother drove in a car to Marion and called at Judge C. H. Bond's house; after leaving Judge Bond's house they picked up Charlie Goad, who went with them, and that after picking up Mr. Goad they went out to appellant's home and parked the car in the front yard; that when the car stopped they all got out about the same time and that Mr. Goad and her mother walked up on the front porch and that Mr. Goad called appellant 2 or 3 times and that her mother attempted to get in the front door with a key; that while they were on the front porch she and her grandfather went around to the back of the house and then came back to the front of the house and cut down a cage that contained a squirrel and that while doing so they heard 2 shots just a few seconds apart and that her mother came running around the house and ran on toward a ditch and that she and her grandfather ran toward the highway; that appellant came out of the front door of the house and shot her grandfather and went to the car and left in it.
J. M. Ross, the father of appellant's wife and grandfather of Helen Davis, testified in corroboration of his granddaughter and in addition explained that they were going to appellant's house to get some of his daughter's clothes; that it was after dark when they reached appellant's home, but that the moon was shining; that he saw Charlie Goad and appellant's wife on the front porch and heard Mr. Goad call appellant several times; that after he and his granddaughter had returned from the back yard and were standing on the front porch and were cutting down a cage that had a squirrel in it, that he heard 2 shots that sounded "sorta muffled"; that his daughter came running around the house from the back and that he himself ran toward highway No. 70 to get help; that after running about 30 or 35 yards he looked around and saw appellant throw up a gun and shoot him in the face and temple.
LeRoy Dalton, a colored man, testified that he lived about one-half mile from the home of Erby Bramlett and that on the night the shots were fired appellant passed his house on the way to Erby Bramlett's home in his car; that he was on his porch when appellant came by and saw appellant flash the car lights on and heard a conversation that occurred between appellant and his brother, Erby Bramlett; that he heard appellant say he had killed one son of a bitch, but that he did not get the right one.
The news was spread around that Charlie Goad had been killed at appellant's home, and Ivan Dickson, a deputy sheriff, testified that he arrived at appellant's home about 9 o'clock p. m., the night of the shooting and that there was no one there but Goad's body; that he gained entrance through the back door; found Charlie Goad's body lying on the floor in the kitchen with his left arm under him loosely holding his pistol; that Goad's flashlight was burning and lying near the kitchen door; that he, Jim Robbins, and Gene Dickinson, who were with him, made an examination of the house and found 2 empty shells and a note on the top of the dresser addressed to Erby stating, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial