Crafford v. State

• Decision Date: 22 June 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 69.)
• Citation: 273 S.W. 13
• Parties: CRAFFORD v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 13

273 S.W. 13

CRAFFORD v. STATE.

(No. 69.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 22, 1925.

Rehearing Denied September 28, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Woodruff County; G. Otis Bogle, Special Judge.

John H. Crafford was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Roy D. Campbell, of Cotton Plant, for appellant.

H. W. Applegate, Atty. Gen., and Jno. L. Carter and Darden Moose, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

HART, J.

John H. Crafford was indicted for murder in the first degree, charged to have been committed by killing Alvin Hutchins on the 4th day of July, 1921, in Woodruff county, Ark. In March, 1925, he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and his punishment fixed by the jury trying him at three years in the state penitentiary. The case is here on appeal.

According to the evidence for the state, John H. Crafford shot and killed Alvin Hutchins at the home of Mrs. Sarah Hopper in the southern district of Woodruff county, Ark., on July 4, 1921. Crafford and Hutchins had both married daughters of Mrs. Hopper, and had been associated in business for several years. Hutchins' wife was dead, and he was living with Mrs. Hopper when he was killed. Mrs. Hopper had all her children there at a family reunion, and they had a picnic dinner some distance from the house. The defendant and his family were there. The defendant drove away somewhere in his automobile and came back after the others had eaten dinner. He was drinking some, and had a fuss with Mrs. Hopper about the key to his automobile. The defendant took a pistol out of his car and approached the house with it. Mrs. Hopper and her daughter and one son-in-law went in the house. Alvin Hutchins and another son-in-law were out back of the house beating up ice with an ax for the purpose of making ice cream. Crafford went back of the house where Hutchins was, and the persons in the house heard four pistol shots fired right close together. Some one hollered, "Oh!" two or three times. After the shooting, Crafford left with the pistol in his hand. There were four pistol wounds in the body of Hutchins. One went in the collar bone, two went in his back above the waist line, and one of these came out just above the naval. One of the shots went in his elbow. No ax or weapon of any kind was found near the body of Hutchins. His body was found six or eight feet from the back steps of the house. Every one in the crowd was sober except the defendant.

According to the testimony of the defendant and of his son, who was with him, Hutchins was advancing upon the defendant with an ax and endeavoring to strike him with it at the time he was shot and killed. It was also shown by other witnesses that the deceased had made threats against the defendant which had been communicated to him. This brief summary of the evidence shows that the verdict of the jury is supported by the evidence, and no reversal of the judgment is asked on this ground.

The first assignment of error upon which the defendant relies for a reversal of the judgment is that the court erred in allowing the prosecuting attorney to read to Elton Holwell and Mrs. Sarah Hopper extracts from their testimony before the grand jury, and asking each of them if he had not made such statements. The extracts from the testimony before the grand jury were read to the witnesses for the purpose of refreshing their memory, and each one stated that he had given the testimony before the grand jury as read to him.

In making this contention, counsel for the defendant relies upon the case of Brown v. State (Ark.) 270 S. W. 537. We do not think that case has any application. There the witness denied that he had testified differently before the grand jury than the testimony being given by him at the trial. Therefore the court held that it was improper to admit the purported evidence of the witness before the grand jury, for the purpose of impeaching him, without first making proof that the testimony offered was the correct testimony of the witness before the grand jury.

In the case before us each witness admitted that the extract of the testimony before the grand jury had been given by him before that body, and stated further that such testimony was true. Thus it will be seen that the testimony was admissible, either for the purpose of contradicting the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial, or as substantive testimony given by them at the trial after refreshing their memory from the testimony given by them before the grand jury. Minor v. State, 162 Ark. 136, 258 S. W. 121.

The next assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to give instruction No. 2 asked by the defendant, which reads as follows:

"You have a right in arriving at a verdict in this case to consider any threats made by the deceased against the defendant, which threats were communicated to the defendant, not only because such threats may show who was the aggressor at the time the killing occurred, but because such communicated threats may show defendant's...