Carlley v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1935 |
| Docket Number | Crim. 3956 |
| Citation | 86 S.W.2d 36,191 Ark. 363 |
| Parties | CARLLEY v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court; W. J. Waggoner, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Lee & Moore, J. F. Holtzendorff, Jas. H. Lawhorn Jr., and Trimble, Trimble & McCrary, for appellant.
Carl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy E. Williams, Assistant, for appellee.
The appellant, Graham Carlley, was charged with murder in the first degree for the killing of Melton Sparks at Hazen Arkansas. He was indicted March 5, 1934, and on March 7 change of venue was had to the circuit court of Monroe County. Upon trial appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to seven years in the penitentiary, and from the judgment of conviction comes this appeal.
In our view of this case it is unnecessary that we set out the material facts in detail, but it does become necessary to discuss one matter upon which the appellant relies for a reversal.
According to the testimony, appellant killed Melton Sparks upon the streets in Hazen, Arkansas, about 9:00 o'clock at night. Carlley shot Sparks, killing him almost instantly, then walked down the street a short distance, surrendered to the town marshal, and about two hours later was delivered to the sheriff at Des Arc. Carlley had talked with the officers transporting him to Des Arc, to the effect that, if an inquest were held that night in regard to the killing of Sparks, he desired to be present. No doubt he thought it highly important to himself that he be there. The officers had agreed with him, but the sheriff conceived it to be his duty to place the prisoner in jail, and, as between the sheriff and the prisoner, appellant here, a sharp altercation arose, resulting in a fight, wherein the sheriff knocked Carlley down with a chair, and, as the two struggled with each other, Carlley cut the coat and other clothing of the sheriff. This controversy was sharp and furious for a time, and, upon the trial of Carlley for the murder of Sparks, the sheriff, H. B. Eddins, was called as a witness and testified about this fight.
Over the objections of the appellant, the sheriff was permitted to testify in detail to all of the matters that occurred in the fight between him and his prisoner, and was permitted to exhibit the coat, cut and slit with the defendant's knife.
At that time the defendant had offered no proof or suggestion as to his character or reputation, and there was no basis or foundation of any kind, justifying the intrusion of this testimony.
Other witnesses testified about this trouble, one of them being Gene Shanks, the deputy sheriff, and another being Andy Rounsell, the town marshal at Hazen, and who had transported Carlley as his prisoner and delivered him to the sheriff. There grew out of this testimony a sharp controversy as to the cause, origin, and extent of the trouble. During the testimony of the several witnesses, objections were constantly urged against the intrusion of this testimony, and were constantly overruled by the court.
The court, in the final ruling upon this testimony, instructed the jury that the testimony might be considered for the purpose of showing the frame of mind the appellant was in, if any, after the killing of Sparks, and whether or not he attempted to escape from the officers after his arrest.
The record in this case discloses that the altercation between the sheriff and his prisoner was hardly second in importance to the trial upon the main charge of murder in the first degree.
Without regard to the merits of the controversy, as between the sheriff and his prisoner, this matter should not have been injected into the trial. We are unable to see, or understand how any testimony in regard to this unfortunate event could in any way explain to the jury the state of mind of the prisoner, whether before or after the killing. It certainly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarley v. State
...is disparaging to the theory of his defense and the evidence tending to support it. If so, the error is prejudicial. Carlley v. State, 191 Ark. 363, 86 S.W.2d 36. We must look then to the theory of his defense and its evidentiary support to answer the Appellant was charged with first degree......
-
Cooley v. State
... ... (b) by ... Mose Edwards, that the appellant shot a pistol six times at ... Mose Edwards' place of business just a few days before ... the homicide ... The ... appellant claims that this rebuttal was improper and ... prejudicial, and cites Carlley v. State, ... 191 Ark. 363, 86 S.W.2d 36. But the cited case affords ... appellant no support. In it, certain testimony about the ... defendant's conduct was introduced in the State's ... case in chief; and we held that it was prejudicial because it ... cast an additional burden on the ... ...
-
Cooley v. State
...just a few days before the homicide. The appellant claims that this rebuttal was improper and prejudicial, and cites Carlley v. State, 191 Ark. 363, 86 S.W. 2d 36. But the cited case affords appellant no support. In it, certain testimony about the defendant's conduct was introduced in the S......
-
Gowan v. Robinson
... ... [191 ... Ark. 360] For reversal of the case, appellant insists that it ... is error to permit Miss Robinson to state that she signed the ... note sued on only as an accommodation-maker as her liability ... was fixed as joint-maker, and that the fact that she ... ...