Cummins v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 191 |
| Citation | 258 S.W. 622,163 Ark. 24 |
| Parties | CUMMINS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Nevada Circuit Court; J. H. McCollum, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Steve Carrigan and J. O. A. Bush, for appellant.
J. S. Utley, Attorney General, John L. Carter, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree, in the circuit court of Nevada County, for killing Fred Murrah, a deputy sheriff, who, with other officers, was attempting to capture a still and gang of moonshiners, and, as punishment for the crime, was adjudged to serve a life term in the State Penitentiary. He has prosecuted an appeal to this court from the judgment of conviction, and seeks a reversal thereof upon three grounds.
His first alleged assignment of error is that he was convicted upon the testimony of an accomplice without corroborating evidence. It is provided by § 3181 of Crawford & Moses' Digest that "a conviction cannot be had in any case of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows that the offense was committed and the circumstances thereof." The record reflects that, about three-thirty A. M. on September 26, 1923, the sheriff and several deputies located a still in said county, and, while consulting as to the best plan to pursue, were fired upon by two of the moonshiners. The sheriff and his posse returned the fire. The firing then became general, and, according to the State's witnesses, seven or eight moonshiners were shooting at them from as many directions with pistols, Winchesters, and shotguns. The sheriff and one of his deputies were wounded, and another, Fred Murrah, was killed. Several on the opposite side were wounded, appellant being one of them.
Noah Charles, the chief prosecuting witness, testified that, when he arrived at the still, about eight-thirty P. M. on the night of the 25th, in company with Lloyd Cummins, he found the following men there, armed with guns: Lark Butler, Eugene Butler, Tom Henry, and appellant; that, after directing him to drink out of a barrel containing mash, they all sent him to the top of the hill to watch, where he remained until about midnight; that he then returned to the still, where the last run was being cooked off; that appellant urged Eugene Butler to hurry, because he thought he heard something; that in a short time appellant again said he heard something, whereupon they all ran up the hill, with their guns, in the direction he claimed to have heard the noise; that in a short time the firing began.
The undisputed testimony reveals that appellant was shot in the fleshy part of the back, near his shoulder blade, whereupon he fled from the scene of the tragedy, and remained about a week amongst his kinsfolk before he surrendered to the sheriff; that, instead of calling a physician to remove the bullet from his wound, he extracted it himself, with the aid of his father; that, when he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. State
... ... State to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a ... reasonable doubt, and where reasonable doubt was properly ... defined. Rogers v. State, 163 Ark. 252, 260 ... S.W. 23; Bost v. State, 140 Ark. 254, 215 ... S.W. 615; Cooper v. State, 145 Ark. 403, ... 224 S.W. 726; Cummins v. State, 163 Ark ... 24, 258 S.W. 622; Barker v. State, 135 Ark ... 404, 205 S.W. 805; Garrett v. State, 171 ... Ark. 297, 284 S.W. 734; Rogers v. State, ... 163 Ark. 252, 260 S.W. 23." ... The ... above correctly declares the law, and it is not in conflict ... ...
-
Adams v. State
...163 Ark. 252, 260 S. W. 23; Bost v. State, 140 Ark. 254, 215 S. W. 615; Cooper v. State, 145 Ark. 403, 224 S. W. 726; Cummins v. State, 163 Ark. 24, 258 S. W. 622; Barker v. State, 135 Ark. 404, 205 S. W. 805; Garrett v. State, 171 Ark. 297, 284 S. W. The above correctly declares the law an......
-
Payne v. State
... ... establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, ... and where reasonable doubt was properly defined ... Rogers v. State, 163 Ark. 252, 260 S.W. 23; ... Bost v. State, 140 Ark. 254, 215 S.W. 615; ... Cooper v. State, 145 Ark. 403, 224 S.W ... 726; Cummins v. State, 163 Ark. 24, 258 ... S.W. 622; Barker v. State, 135 Ark. 404, ... 205 S.W. 805; Garrett v. State, 171 Ark ... 297, 284 S.W. 734; Rogers v. State, 163 ... Ark. 252, 260 S.W. 23.' The above correctly declares the ... law, and it is not in conflict with any of our previous ... ...
-
Garrett v. State
... ... which witnesses should be believed, and, as the [171 Ark ... 302] court had given ... [284 S.W. 737] ... appropriate instructions on weighing testimony, and also on ... the question of reasonable doubt, the instruction was ... properly refused. See also Cummins v ... State, 163 Ark. 24, 258 S.W. 622; Barker v ... State, 135 Ark. 404, 205 S.W. 805 ... Appellant ... requested an instruction numbered 6, which reads as follows: ... "The jury are instructed that, in passing upon the ... question of whether the defendant, at the time ... ...