Deshazo v. State
| Citation | 179 S.W. 1012,120 Ark. 494 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | 208 |
| Parties | DESHAZO v. STATE |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Sevier Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Steel Lake & Head, for appellant.
The court erred in refusing to give the first instruction requested it being a concise statement of the law and also a caution to the jury. 92 Ark. 481.
Instruction numbered 2 asked for by the defendant should have been given because it was the only instruction directing the attention of the jury to the fact that the testimony relied on must not only be consistent with and point to the guilt of the defendant, but it must be inconsistent with his innocence. 58 Ark. 473.
Instruction numbered 3 asked for and refused was a concrete application of the doctrine of reasonable doubt. 71 Ark. 459. Instruction numbered 4 dealt with the question of the presumption of innocence, and should have been given.
Instruction numbered 13 was a correct statement of the law and should have been given. 77 Ark. 337; 110 Ark. 209. No presumption will be indulged in the giving or refusal of instructions where harmless. Before such error can be said to have been blameless, it must appear that they could not have prejudiced the rights of the defendant.
The defendant was entitled to have the jury pass on the facts with a correct understanding of the law applicable thereto. 67 Ark. 594; 5 Wall. 807; 31 Me. 534; 16 Ark. 329; 69 Ark 177.
Wallace Davis, Attorney General, Jno P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.
The court did not err in refusing to give instruction No. 1, asked by defendant. 92 Ark. 481, 483.
Instruction numbered 2 asked for by the defendant should have been refused. 58 Ark. 473.
The court did not err in modifying instruction numbered 4, as asked for by defendant. 109 Ark. 516, 523.
Instruction numbered 13 was covered by instruction numbered 8, and the court's oral charge.
Appellant was convicted upon a charge of assault with intent to kill, and on this appeal questions only the action of the court in refusing to give certain instructions asked by him.
The first of the instructions so refused declared the law to be that the indictment in the case was a mere accusation, or charge, against the defendant, and raised no presumption of his guilt, and was no evidence of guilt, and that the jury should not permit themselves to be influenced to any extent because, or on account of, the indictment.
This instruction, of course, correctly declares the law, and the court below might very well have given in, but it does not appear that this failure is error calling for the reversal of the case, inasmuch as the court gave the following instruction numbered 4.
Ross v. State, 92 Ark. 481, 123 S.W. 756.
The court refused to give the following instruction numbered 2:
This instruction, and others of a similar character, are usually given in cases where it is sought to prove the guilt of the defendant as an inference to be drawn from facts and circumstances established by the proof, and, while such an instruction is no doubt proper in cases of that kind, it can not be said that it was error to refuse to give it here. This is true because this case is a swearing match, and according to the proof on the part of the State appellant was guilty as charged, while according to the testimony in his behalf he acted in his necessary self defense.
An instruction numbered 3 asked by appellant was also refused. This instruction dealt with the subject of reasonable doubt but the law of that subject was covered in other instructions given by the court. And the same thing may be said of appellant's instruction numbered 4, which dealt with the question of the presumption of innocence. The court is not required to charge the law upon any question in every possible manner in which a correct statement of it can be prepared by counsel, but it is sufficient if the law be so declared that the jury may not be in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. State
...so declared that the jury may not be in doubt as to the law of a particular question as applied to the facts of the case. DeShazo v. State, 120 Ark. 494, 179 S.W. 1012. The instructions must fully and fairly declare the law applicable to any defense as to which the defendant has offered suf......
-
Adams v. State
...... prayers for instructions is in. [5 S.W.2d 954] . perfect accord with the doctrine of our cases as announced. [176 Ark. 934] in Wacaster v. State, 172. Ark. 983, 291 S.W. 85; Garrett v. State, . 171 Ark. 297, 284 S.W. 734; Cooper v. State, 145 Ark. 403, 224 S.W. 726; DeShazo . v. State, 120 Ark. 494, 179 S.W. 1012;. Rogers v. State, 163 Ark. 252, 260 S.W. 23;. Cummins v. State, 163 Ark. 24, 258 S.W. 622; Barker v. State, 135 Ark. 404, 205. S.W. 805--commented upon in brief of counsel for appellant. Indeed, we do not consider that the case of Barton ......
-
Rogers v. State
...that the defendant would have been guilty of either murder in the first or second degree, had death ensued from the assault. 47 Ark. 275; 120 Ark. 494; 125 Ark. 542; 72 569. The burden was upon the State, which it has failed to discharge, of proving a specific intent to kill. 96 Ark. 55; 49......
-
Francis v. State
......State, 34. Ark. 275, we have consistently held, to sustain an indictment. for assault with intent to kill, the evidence must be such as. will warrant a conviction for murder if death had resulted. from the assault. Allen v. State, 117 Ark. 432, 174 S.W. 1179; Deshazo v. State, 120. Ark. 494, 179 S.W. 1012; Davis v. State,. 115 Ark. 566, 173 S.W. 829; Alford v. State, 110 Ark. 300, 161 S.W. 497; Jones v. State, 100 Ark. 195, 139 S.W. 1126. . . Moreover,. we have many times held that the evidence to warrant a. conviction for assault ......