Finley v. State, 5006
| Decision Date | 13 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 5006,5006 |
| Parties | Herbert FINLEY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
J. Hugh Wharton, El Dorado, for appellant.
J. Frank Holt, Atty. Gen., by Jack Holt, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Herbert Finley, Jr., was charged jointly with Arthur Hinton with the crime of Murder in the Second Degree, the Information alleging that they murdered J. C. Meeks on July 2, 1960, by stabbing him to death. On September 27, 1960 (the date of the trial), Finley filed a motion asking that he be granted a severance and a separate trial. The motion was denied by the court, and the case tried. The jury found Finley guilty of the crime of Voluntary Manslaughter, and fixed his punishment at seven years imprisonment. From the judgment so entered, appellant brings this appeal. In his Motion for New Trial, appellant raises four assignments of error, the first three relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, and the fourth alleging error by the court in refusing to grant the Motion for Severance.
The testimony reflected that on the night of July 2, 1960, appellant, Hinton, Meeks, and others, were engaged in 'shooting craps' in the colored restroom of the Last Chance Cafe near El Dorado. Meeks was rolling the dice, and an argument ensued between him and Hinton as to whether Meeks had 'made his point'. Hinton picked up the money, and Meeks got out a knife. Appellant then entered into the argument on behalf of Hinton, and, according to Mose Turner, Subsequently, according to the witness, the participants left the restroom and went outside, and Hinton again struck Meeks with a knife, the latter falling. Booker T. Owens testified that Finley also had an open knife on the outside, and the evidence reflected that appellant kicked Meeks while he was lying on the ground, and warned those standing around, 'Don't nobody touch him--let him lay there.' Finley and Hinton left in an automobile, and Meeks was later taken to the hospital by a bystander, but died as a result of the knife wounds sustained. Five witnesses testified, two of them stating that Meeks picked up a brickbat when he went outside; the others stated that they did not see a brickbat. There was no testimony that Meeks made any attack with the brickbat, or that he had made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murchison v. State
...233, 161 S.W.2d 400; Ashcraft v. State, 208 Ark. 1089, 189 S.W.2d 374; Wootton v. State, 232 Ark. 300, 337 S.W.2d 651; Finley v. State, 233 Ark. 232, 343 S.W.2d 787; Ballew v. State, (Ark., June 2, 1969), 441 S.W.2d It would serve no useful purpose to detail all the testimony of all the wit......
-
Ballew v. State
...the appellee and if there is any substantial evidence to support these verdicts then the verdicts must be sustained. Finley v. State, 233 Ark. 232, 343 S.W.2d 787 (1961). The appellant, Bobby Ballew, had been 'dating' Omega Wallace Coots, the prosecutrix, for about a year. Eventually, Mrs. ......
-
Brown v. State
...that his co-defendant used prejudicial tactics which prejudiced his case. We find no merit to this contention. In Finley v. State, 233 Ark. 232, 343 S.W.2d 787 (1961), this court 'Counsel for appellant does not specify wherein the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a severance......
-
Walker v. State
...was no abuse by the Court of its discretion. Bennett & Holiman v. State, 201 Ark. 237, 144 S.W.2d 476, 131 A.L.R. 908; Finley v. State, 233 Ark. 232, 343 S.W.2d 787. There was no reason to quash the information against Walker merely because of the III. Refusal To Excuse A Juror. On voir dir......