Carpenter v. State
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HOLT, J. |
| Citation | Carpenter v. State, 164 S.W.2d 993, 204 Ark. 752 (Ark. 1942) |
| Decision Date | 05 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | 4272 |
| Parties | CARPENTER v. STATE |
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; Thomas E. Toler, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
J R. Long, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
A jury convicted appellant, Arthur Carpenter, of the crime of arson and fixed his punishment at one year in the state penitentiary. The indictment charged that appellant on January 1, 1942, set fire to and burned a building belonging to the Washington county, Mississippi, Y. M. C. A. On this appeal appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict and the judgment against him, and that the trial court erred in giving appellee's instruction No. 4.
In cases of this nature this court has many times announced the rule that the duty devolves upon the state to prove the corpus delicti. The state must also not only show that a building was burned, but that such burning was the result of the willful act of some person responsible for his acts. See Johnson v. State, 198 Ark. 871 131 S.W.2d 934, and Hancock v. State, ante, p. 174, 161 S.W.2d 198.
The rule is also well established that arson may be proved by circumstantial evidence. See Duke v. State, 183 Ark. 1153, 38 S.W.2d 764.
On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the appellee. See Slinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765, 103 S.W.2d 50, and Tate v. State, ante, p. 470, 163 S.W.2d 150.
The secretary of the Y. M. C. A. described its property located near Malvern, Arkansas, and testified that the summer before the Y. M. C. A. building, in question, was burned they had cared for approximately 550 boys and girls in the camp, and that in a conversation with appellant, a near neighbor to the camp, appellant objected to the camp and its location. Sam Easley, a caretaker at the camp, testified that he discovered the fire at about 12:30 a. m., and that by the time he reached it the fire was beyond control. He sent his boy to call officers and request that blood hounds be sent to the scene. Bill Abbott came with two dogs and about 20 feet from the place where the building had burned they came upon and followed a trail. He further testified that he saw a jug "partly burned right there where the fire was set." There had been a very hard rain preceding the fire.
Paul Easley, the caretaker's son, corroborated his testimony.
Bill Abbott, a Hot Springs policeman, testified that he brought two blood hounds to the scene; that they were bred at the Arkansas prison farm at Tucker, were well trained and he had never seen them fooled. When he reached the scene the building had completely burned, but the rain had stopped. He took the dogs to the back of the building and they "picked up a trail" which they followed to appellant's house. He further testified that the dogs could not have "picked up" a trail made the day before on account of the rain. On the trail they came to soft spots where they found rubber boot tracks that had been made since the rain. He put appellant's boots in the tracks and they fitted. They found the boots in appellant's house about two hours after the fire and after the dogs had led them to it. The boots were wet and appellant's trousers were wet to his waist. He further testified that they tried the dogs to see if they would trail anyone away from the gate leading to appellant's house, and they would not.
Will Lowe, a deputy sheriff, testified that he and Mr. Abbott managed the dogs and that they followed a trail up to appellant's house. He called on appellant to come out and in four or five minutes appellant appeared. Appellant had on his trousers and a pair of socks. The trousers were wet from the waist down, and the boots which were lying in a box near the wall were still moist. Appellant said he had been in the house all evening, ever since he had finished his work. The trousers were so wet you could squeeze water out of them. He compared the boots with a track and they fitted. The track had been made after the rain which ceased about midnight. He...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Dickens v. Tisdale
-
Napier v. State, 4684
...It is not sufficient to bring forward an objection to an instruction for the first time in the motion for new trial. Carpenter v. State, 204 Ark. 752, 164 S.W.2d 993. If the defendant thought the instruction was susceptible to an improper meaning which resulted in inducement to return a ver......
-
Fielder v. State
... ... motion for a new trial can serve no other purpose than to ... assign the ruling or action of the court as error. This ... practice has since been continuously followed, and that ... holding has been frequently reaffirmed, one of the latest ... cases to that effect being the case of Carpenter v ... State, 204 Ark. 752, 164 S.W.2d 993. An even later ... case is that of Chandler v. State, 205 Ark ... 74, 167 S.W.2d 142 ... We may, ... therefore, review only such assignments of error, relating to ... irregularities occurring at the trial, as are reflected in ... ...
-
Eason v. State, CACR07-467 (Ark. App. 6/24/2009)
...sufficient to support a criminal conviction for arson. See, e.g., Lowry v. State, 364 Ark. 6, 216 S.W.3d 101 (2005); Carpenter v. State, 204 Ark. 752, 164 S.W.2d 993 (1942). Although the present case differs from those cited above in that, here, the accelerants found at the scene were not d......