Brooks v. State

• Decision Date: 01 December 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 24.)
• Citation: 216 S.W. 705
• Parties: BROOKS v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

216 S.W. 705

BROOKS v. STATE.

(No. 24.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 1, 1919.

Rehearing Denied January 12, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lafayette County; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge.

Will Brooks was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Reversed and remanded, unless the Attorney General within 15 days elects that the judgment be modified so as to sentence the defendant for manslaughter.

A. H. Hamiter, of Lewisville, and Stevens & Stevens, of Magnolia, for appellant.

Jno. D. Arbuckle, Atty. Gen., and Robt. C. Knox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HART, J.

In the case at bar, Will Brooks prosecutes an appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction against him for murder in the second degree. The killing occurred in the nighttime, just before Christmas, in Lafayette county, Ark.

According to the testimony of John Law, a witness for the state, he started home with Irene Crawford from a party or ball at Sip Harrison's house. On their way home Terry Collins ran up to John Law and tried to take a pistol from him, saying that he was in a row with Willie Rushing and wanted the pistol on that account. Law refused to give Collins the pistol, and Collins tore Law's raincoat in trying to take the pistol away from him. Will Brooks ran up, and with an oath asked Law what he wanted to shoot Terry Collins for. Law answered that he did not want to shoot him. Brooks in reply said:

"You are a God damn liar; if you do not believe Mr. Brooks will do what he says he will I will show you."

About that time Brooks fired his pistol, and shot Irene Crawford in the stomach. When Brooks walked up to Law and commenced talking to him, Irene Crawford was standing by the left side of Law, with her arm on his shoulder. She said to Law, "Let's go," and back-stepped in front of him. Just at that time Brooks fired his pistol, and the ball struck her in the stomach. She said, "Oh, Bud (referring to Will Brooks), you shot me in the stomach," and fell. Brooks shot again, and then Law pulled his pistol in order to save his own life and shot at Brooks. After Irene Crawford fell she was carried into a house near by, and died in a short time as the result of her wound. Law said that he had not done anything to Brooks, and gave him no cause for shooting at him. There were several eyewitnesses to the killing, who corroborated the testimony of Law in every respect.

Will Brooks was a witness for himself. According to his testimony, John Law, Irene Crawford, and Terry Collins were standing in the road fussing about something when he approached them. He asked them what was the matter with them. Law had his pistol in his hand, and said, "What in the hell have you got to do with it?" Brooks told him that he had nothing to do with it, and Law again cursed Brooks. Brooks then told Law not to curse him, and Law pulled the woman to one side and shot at Brooks. Brooks then stepped to the side of Irene Crawford and shot at Law. Law then made two more shots at Brooks. As soon as the woman said that she was shot, Brooks put his pistol in his pocket and went off to get a doctor. Other witnesses testified for the defendant and corroborated his testimony.

At common law, if a person shot at another with malice, and by accident or mistake killed a third person, the offense was murder. Under our statute a person will be held guilty of murder or manslaughter according to the circumstances of the killing, who, in the attempt to kill one person, by mistake kills a third person, although there was no intent or design to kill such third person. Ringer v. State, 74 Ark. 262, 85 S. W. 410; 21 Cyc. 712, and cases cited; Wharton on Homicide (3d Ed.) par. 360, and Michie on Homicide, vol. 1, § 17. The rule in such cases is comprehensively stated in volume 1, § 17, of Michie on Homicide as follows:

"If a man attempt to kill another without justification, without provocation, and not under circumstances of mitigation, and in pursuance of that effort hits and kills a third person, his guilt is measured by the same standard as though he had killed the person originally intended. Whether defendant who shot at one person and killed another is guilty of homicide in any of its grades or not depends on the character of his act, and his intent, whether criminal or not, as applied to the person whom he intended to shoot. The thing done follows the nature of the thing intended to be done, and the guilt or innocence of the slayer depends upon the same considerations that would have governed had the blow killed the person against whom it was directed. In determining the criminality of the act of killing it is immaterial whether the intent was to kill the person killed or whether the death of such person was the accidental or otherwise unintentional result of the intent to kill some one else. The purpose and malice with which the...