Coulter v. State

• Decision Date: 17 November 1913
• Citation: 161 S.W. 186
• Parties: COULTER v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

161 S.W. 186

COULTER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 17, 1913.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sevier County; Jeff T. Cowling, Judge.

Jim Coulter was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and appeals. Affirmed.

Steel, Lake & Head, of Texarkana, for appellant. Wm. L. Moose, Atty. Gen., and Jno. P. Streepey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HART, J.

The defendant, Jim Coulter, was indicted for the crime of assault with intent to kill, charged to have been committed by shooting Cal Rollins. He was convicted, and his punishment fixed by the jury at one year in the penitentiary. From the judgment of conviction, he has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

The facts, so far as are material for a consideration of the issues raised by the appeal, are substantially as follows: On the 31st day of August, 1912, the defendant, Jim Coulter, and the prosecuting witness, Cal Rollins, and his brothers, Al and Dural Rollins, attended a negro picnic in Sevier county, Ark. Cal Rollins arrived there about noon, and his two brothers and the defendant were already there. During the morning some trouble occurred between Al and Dural Rollins and the defendant, Jim Coulter. Later in the afternoon some words again passed between Al Rollins and the defendant. The defendant placed his hand in his bosom, and Al Rollins started off. About this time Cal Rollins came up. Dural Rollins was also present. Some words passed between Cal Rollins and the defendant, and the defendant said, "Don't you believe I will shoot you?" Cal Rollins replied, "No," and turned towards his brother Dural, intending to go away, and the defendant again said, "Don't you believe I will shoot you?" Cal Rollins then whirled, facing the defendant, and just as he did so the defendant shot him with a pistol. Cal Rollins was about 10 feet away from the defendant, and says that he made no demonstration to draw a gun or to do the defendant any harm. Other witnesses for the state testified that at the time the defendant shot Cal Rollins the latter was not making any hostile demonstrations towards him at all. Other witnesses said that just prior to the shooting Cal Rollins had run his hand in his pocket as if to draw a weapon of some kind, and another witness states that a knife was found near where he was standing after the shooting. The defendant testified for himself, and stated that Cal Rollins was approaching him with a knife in his hand, and that he began to walk backwards; that Cal Rollins kept approaching him with the knife, and that he then jerked out his pistol, and shot him in order to save his own life; that at the same time he was trying to keep his eyes on Dural Rollins, who was trying to slip up on him with a knife. He stated that Cal wheeled after he shot and ran away; that he did not try to shoot Cal Rollins any more, and gave up his gun, and went home immediately after the shooting. He said that he had carried his pistol with him to the picnic because threats had been made against him, and that he carried it in self-defense. Other witnesses tended to corroborate his testimony.

It is first contended by counsel for defendant that the court erred in giving the instruction No. 10. They contend that the instruction makes the guilt or innocence of the defendant depend upon the existence of reasonable grounds of belief that he was in danger, regardless of how the danger appeared to him. We do not deem it necessary to set out the instruction complained of. At the request of the defendant, the court fully instructed the jury on the question of appearance of danger to him. In discussing an objection to an instruction similar to the one now complained of in the case of Manasco v. State, 104 Ark. 397, 148 S. W. 1025, the court said that the instruction, when taken in connection with an instruction given at the request of the defendant, was not open to the objection that it substitutes the judgment of the jury for the judgment of the defendant as to the necessity for taking life, and that the instructions taken together correctly declared the law, as announced by this court. If counsel for defendant thought at the trial that the instruction was open to the construction that they now insist on, they should have made a specific objection to it, and, inasmuch as the court gave, at their request, two instructions on the subject of the appearance of danger to the defendant, there can be no doubt that it would have changed the phraseology of the instruction now complained of had a specific objection been made to it.

It is next contended that the court erred in giving the following instruction: "You are further instructed that every sane man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts."

The court should not have given this instruction; but, under the facts as disclosed by the record, we do not think it was prejudicial to the rights of the defendant. The defendant himself testifies that at the time he shot the prosecuting witness the latter was advancing upon him with a knife, and was close upon him, and that he shot in order to save his own life. In other words, he admitted that he drew his pistol, and shot the prosecuting witness with the intent to kill him, because he thought his own life was in danger. Therefore we cannot see in what manner he was prejudiced by the giving of the instruction.

Counsel for the defendant next complain that the court erred in giving instruction No. 17. They say that the defendant was being tried for shooting Cal Rollins, and that they object to instruction No. 17, because in it the court, in effect, told the jury that, if the...