Burford v. State
| Decision Date | 13 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | 104 |
| Citation | 41 S.W.2d 751,184 Ark. 193 |
| Parties | BURFORD v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court; J. F. Koone, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Shinn & Henley and Shouse & Rowland, for appellant.
Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Pat Mehaffy, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, on an indictment charging murder in the first degree, for the killing of R. O. Lawhorn, and sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary.
The first assignment of error urged for a reversal of the case relates to the refusal of the court to permit the witness Dr. C. M. Routh to answer a question as to about how long, in his opinion, he thought appellant would live. It was developed in the testimony of this and other witnesses that appellant was afflicted with Hodgkin's disease and had been so afflicted for about two years, and that a person so afflicted would probably live from eighteen months to four years. We do not see the importance of the testimony sought to be elicited by the above question, nor its relevancy. If it were sought to show the physical condition of appellant, that fact was fully developed by other testimony, as was also the fact of his mental condition. The length of time the witness might have thought appellant would live from the date of the trial was unimportant and properly excluded.
The next assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court to permit the witness, Pumphrey, son-in-law of appellant, to testify that the deceased had the reputation of having a violent and uncontrollable temper. The record reflects that the court permitted the witness to testify to the deceased's reputation for having a violent and uncontrollable temper. For instance the witness was asked this question and gave this answer: He further answered that he was a high tempered man and quick to fly to pieces. It will therefore be seen that the witness was permitted to answer the question.
The next assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court to permit the witness, Dr. G. I. Jackson, to answer a question, based on his knowledge of appellant's physical condition as to whether appellant had such control of his mental and nervous faculties as to be rationally responsible for his acts. The record reflects that this witness was permitted to testify concerning appellant's affliction and its effect on his nervous system, and in his opinion that he did not have that control that a normal person would have. We think the court properly excluded the testimony called for in the question because it ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins v. State
...Ark. 916, 5 S.W.2d 946; Smith v. State, 192 Ark. 967, 96 S.W.2d 1.' See also, Cook v. State, 155 Ark. 106, 244 S.W. 735; Burford v. State, 184 Ark. 193, 41 S.W.2d 751. It is held generally that the mere fact that an accused is nervous, or very excitable, is not sufficient grounds for a cont......
-
Norton & Wheeler Stave Co. v. Wright
... ... a manifest abuse of such discretion that this court will ... reverse for refusal of such motion. Burford v ... State, 184 Ark. 193, 41 S.W.2d 751. If it be ... conceded that the evidence relating to due diligence offered ... in support of the motion ... ...
-
Hooper v. State
...in the trial court. The question of granting or refusing a continuance is within the discretion of the trial court. Burford v. State, 184 Ark. 193, 41 S.W.(2d) 751. The statute, with reference to postponement of criminal cases, reads as follows: "When an indictment is called for trial, or a......
-
Atkinson v. State, 4769
...time of the examination. A motion for a continuance rests to a large extent in the sound discretion of the trial court. Burford v. State, 184 Ark. 193, 41 S.W.2d 751; Perkins v. State, 217 Ark. 252, 230 S.W.2d 1. Here we can not say the trial court abused its discretion in over-ruling the m......