Carson v. State, 4631
| Decision Date | 02 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4631,4631 |
| Citation | 232 S.W.2d 835,217 Ark. 658 |
| Parties | CARSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Claude F. Cooper, Blytheville, for appellant.
Ike Murry, Atty. Gen., Arnold Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Wheeler Carson, questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree murder and fixing his punishment at twenty-one years in the penitentiary.
According to the witnesses on behalf of the State, these are the events that transpired prior to the fatal stabbing of the deceased, Chester Jones, by the appellant on the night of December 12, 1949:
About six o'clock in the evening, appellant and his brother, Finley Carson, joined the deceased; his cousin, Alberta Allen; and one J. T. Baker at a cafe in Blytheville, Arkansas. The five of them drove to the Missouri state line, where they purchased a half pint of whiskey. After about thirty minutes they drove to a roadside establishment, Roy's Place, on Highway 61, the group having consumed the liquor enroute. Here they drank two or three rounds of beer. The Carson brothers had been drinking all afternoon.
From Roy's Place the party started for the Silver Slipper. Enroute Finley Carson announced that his brother, the appellant, could 'whip any two sons-of-bitches' in the car. After first ignoring this assertion, which was repeated several times, the deceased said he was getting tired of being called a son-of-a-bitch; he and the appellant got out of the car and had some words, but then shook hands and proceeded to town. Later Finley renewed his provocative remarks, and an argument ensued.
Following this argument, the car was stopped again and this time the deceased and appellant exchanged some blows, the deceased being the victor in the bout. They then shook hands, got back in the car and started to take the Carsons home. On the way, at appellant's insistence that he wanted another beer, they stopped at the Silver Slipper, where the deceased went in and bought appellant a beer. While deceased was inside the Silver Slipper, appellant made the threat: 'He whipped my tail once, I will get even with the son-of-a-bitch'.
Upon arrival of the party at the Carson home, the appellant remained at the car after his brother went to the house, and invited the others to come in for a drink. The deceased accepted this invitation, although he had been informed of appellant's threat. After about five minutes, the deceased, who had been stabbed with a knife, came running out of the house in a bent-over position. He died on the way to the hospital. None of those in the car had heard any disturbance in the house.
At the trial it was shown that the deceased had suffered a breast wound about two inches long, that the breast bone had been cut through and the subclavicle artery severed.
The accused admitted having cut the deceased with a knife, but claimed he had acted in self-defense. His testimony was that the deceased started another fight, after coming in the house uninvited; that at the time of the stabbing the deceased was 'raising up' from behind a stove with a metal poker. The defendant testified that he only intended to hit the deceased in the arm to disable him. The defendant's brother and father testified that they rushed into the front room, from a back room where the elder Carson had been asleep 'till the racket started.' Neither saw the start of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kagebein v. State
...certainly was a circumstance tending to show malice by showing the abandoned and malignant disposition of the killer. Carson v. State, 217 Ark. 658, 232 S.W.2d 835. In short, the state had a right to show anything that occurred between the parties and to show the mental attitude of the accu......
-
Perry v. State
...malice. Davis v. State, 246 Ark. 838, 440 S.W.2d 244; Government of Virgin Islands v. Lake, 362 F.2d 770 (3rd Cir. 1966); Carson v. State, 217 Ark. 658, 232 S.W.2d 835; Tatum v. State, 172 Ark. 244, 288 S.W. 904. See also, Stanley v. State, 248 Ark. 787, 454 S.W.2d 72; Stockton v. State, 23......
-
Gordon v. Woodruff County
... ... This is the third controversy involving use of the [217 Ark. 654] land. See Jeffries v. State, use of Woodruff County, 212 Ark. 213, 205 S.W.2d 194; Id., 216 Ark. 657, 226 S.W.2d 810 ... ...