Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 18 December 1922
• Docket Number: 54
• Citation: 245 S.W. 813,156 Ark. 288
• Parties: BROWN v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

245 S.W. 813

156 Ark. 288

BROWN v. STATE

No. 54

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 18, 1922

Appeal from Ashley Circuit Court; Turner Butler, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

G P. George, for appellant.

J S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.

OPINION

WOOD, J.

This is an appeal from the conviction of appellant on an indictment which in proper form charged him with the crime of assault with intent to kill one Dewey Pierce. The testimony on the part of the State tended to show that a dance was given at the home of Zack Robertson in Ashley County, Arkansas, on the night of the 22d of April, 1922. At the conclusion of the dance Deverous Brown, son of appellant, and Aubrey Chadwick were engaged in a fight. Brown shoved Chadwick off the gallery. Brown was a man and Chadwick a mere boy. Dewey Pierce asked Brown to let Chadwick alone. Brown thereupon turned and started toward Dewey Pierce. Whereupon Pierce struck him in the head with his fist. Brown and Pierce then began to fight. As soon as the fight started, appellant drew his knife, ran upon the gallery behind Pierce and began cutting him in the back. Pierce started to run and fell off the gallery and became entangled in some vines or wire. Appellant jumped off the gallery, went around to where Pierce was, and again cut him with the knife in several places. Pierce broke loose from appellant and ran. Appellant pursued him and caught him while he was climbing the front yard fence and again cut him with the knife. Pierce succeeded in getting away from appellant, and as he was running away appellant remarked, "Dewey, what in the world is the matter with you? By G-- , I'll kill you." Appellant also stated soon after the difficulty, "I sure did give Dewey a bad lick when he went over the fence. Some of them will find him out in the bushes dead some time right away." Pierce received nine wounds as the result of the attack by the appellant, which almost resulted in the loss of his life. Pierce at no time made any hostile move toward the appellant.

The appellant's defense was that he did not attack Pierce with a knife; that the fight was between his son and Pierce, in which both used their knives, and that his son inflicted the wounds upon Pierce in self-defense.

Among the court's instructions was the following: "While it is necessary that the proof should show a specific intent to take life in order to constitute the crime of assault with intent to kill, it is not necessary that this intent should be shown by direct and positive evidence, but it may be shown by facts and circumstances, and, in determining whether such intent existed, you will take into consideration the manner of the assault, the nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the nature and location of the wounds inflicted, the statements of the defendant, if any, and all other facts and circumstances tending to show the state of his mind, and in this connection you are instructed that every sane man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts."

The appellant entered a general objection to this instruction.

Instruction No. 12 was erroneous because it concludes with the following clause: "* * * and in this connection you are instructed that every sane man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts." In Lacefield v. State, 34 Ark. 275 at 275-280 we said: "Whilst it is true that every person is presumed to contemplate the ordinary and natural...