Clements v. State
Decision Date | 06 November 1939 |
Docket Number | 4141 |
Parties | CLEMENTS v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Western District; S. M. Bone Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
R C. Waldron, Hugh U. Williamson, W. A. Jackson and Roy Richardson, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appellant, Marvin Clements, was charged in an information in the western district of Lawrence county, with the murder of Carson Higginbotham, and upon a trial was convicted of murder in the second degree and his punishment fixed at five years in the state penitentiary.
He appeals to this court and assigns twelve different grounds upon which he relies for a reversal.
We consider them in the order presented.
It is first contended that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the purported written dying declaration or statement of deceased, on the ground that no proper foundation for its introduction had first been laid.
A dying declaration constitutes an exception to the rule rejecting hearsay evidence. To warrant its admission, it must be shown that the statement or declaration was made by the deceased under the belief or apprehension of impending death. The theory of the law being that one who realizes or believes that he is about to step into eternity will speak the truth. Deceased's realization of impending death, at the time of making the statement, may be gathered from the statement itself and any other facts and circumstances surrounding him at the time, nor is it essential that deceased should apprehend immediate dissolution. The dying statement objected to is as follows:
The record reflects that at the time this statement was executed by the deceased he was in a hospital in a serious condition from bullet wounds, inflicted by appellant, and that he died within forty-eight hours of the statement.
The nurse who attended him constantly, testified that she was present when the dying declaration was executed by the deceased and that he asked his brother who wrote it out for him to let him read it over before he signed it and signed it in her presence. She further testified that in her opinion he was in a serious condition at the time and realized it, and further:
Before this dying declaration could be offered a preliminary question is presented to the trial court for his determination as to whether it is admissible at all. If he concludes that it is admissible, it then goes to the jury for whatever weight the jury may give it.
The rule is well stated in Freels v. State, 130 Ark. 189, 196 S.W. 913:
In the late case of Goynes v. State, 184 Ark. 303, 42 S.W.2d 406, this court said:
In Evans v. State, 58 Ark. 47, 22 S.W. 1026, this court held (quoting headnote): "A statement by one who has been shot respecting the circumstances under which the wound was inflicted is admissible as a dying declaration, in a prosecution for the killing of such person, if made at a time when he did not expect to survive the injury, although this was five or six days before his death and at a time when he did not apprehend immediate dissolution."
The record further reflects that the statement in question was dictated by deceased to his brother, who typed it and was then signed and executed by deceased and contained the statement: "I realize that I am on the verge of death, and I want the facts and truth known."
We think the statement itself and the testimony of the nurse clearly make it admissible in evidence and that no error was committed by the court in allowing it to go to the jury.
Appellant next contends the court erred in refusing to permit him to impeach the purported dying declaration of deceased.
The first instance in the testimony to which appellant complains is in the examination of one J. H. White by whom he sought to prove a certain conversation with deceased in which he claimed deceased had made a statement concerning appellant. This testimony is as follows:
Upon objection to this testimony by the state, the court ruled:
The next testimony about which appellant complains because the trial court sustained the state's objection to its admission is that of Chili Childers and is as follows:
The next is the testimony of Dr. C. C. Ball, which is as follows:
We think the mere reading of the above testimony shows that it did not tend to contradict or impeach the dying declaration in question and that no error was committed by the trial court in ruling it incompetent.
Appellant further contends that the court erred in refusing to allow him to introduce certain affidavits filed in Washington by various parties who sought to cause appellant to lose his job, and a certain letter of deceased's brother which accompanied the affidavits. Appellant sought the introduction of these affidavits for the purpose of contradicting that part of the dying declaration which declared that he, deceased, had nothing to do with trying to cause appellant to lose his job.
Upon objection by the state to the introduction of these affidavits, and its insistence that only affidavits be received in evidence of those persons making them who had testified in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McConahay v. State, CR
... ... Trial § 207, p. 407. See IX Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.) 501, § 2550; McCormick on Evidence (2d Ed.) 121, § 53; Cantrell v. State, 117 Ark. 233, 174 S.W. 521; Pine Bluff Co. v. Bobbitt, 174 Ark. 41, 294 S.W. 1002; Wimberly v. State, 90 Ark. 514, 119 S.W. 668; Clements v. State, 199 Ark. 69, 133 S.W.2d 844 ... It was clearly recognized in Burgett, that the error in admitting evidence such as is involved here might be harmless. There the United States Supreme Court said: ... The admission of a prior criminal conviction which is ... ...
-
Walker v. State, 5773
... ... Perez v. State, supra; Petty v. State, 245 Ark. 808, 434 S.W.2d 602; Lewis v. State, 220 Ark. 914, 251 S.W.2d 490; Clements v. State, 199 Ark. 69, 133 S.W.2d 844. We have, in many cases, clearly recognized that error in the trial ... proceedings is not reversible error unless it is so manifestly prejudicial to a defendant that a proper admonition would not have afforded an adequate cure. Moore v. State, 251 Ark ... ...
- Clements v. State, 4141.
-
Harrison v. State
... ... intention of killing Carvill and acted in his own necessary ... self-defense. Unfortunately for appellant, the jury thought ... otherwise ... As to ... the sufficiency of the evidence, in the recent case of ... Clements v. State, 199 Ark. 69, 133 S.W.2d ... 844, this court said: "In West v ... State, 196 Ark. 763, 120 S.W.2d 26, this court said: ... ' ... it is also a well-settled rule that the evidence ... at the trial will, on appeal, be viewed in the light most ... favorable to the appellee, and if there ... ...