Frame v. State
| Decision Date | 07 January 1905 |
| Citation | Frame v. State, 73 Ark. 501, 84 S.W. 711 (Ark. 1905) |
| Parties | FRAME v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court, ZACHARIAH T. WOOD, Judge.
Affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
At the March term, 1904, of the Chicot Circuit Court, the grand jury returned against appellant an indictment, charging that he in the county of Chicot, and State of Arkansas, on the 11th day of March, 1904, did willfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, and with deliberation and premeditation kill and murder John Palmer, by shooting him with a pistol against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.At the same term, he was tried before a jury, and convicted of murder in the second degree; and sentenced to seven years in the penitentiary.
Frame killed Palmer by shooting him twice with a pistol.The medical expert who examined the body of Palmer testified that one shot entered Palmer's breast slightly to the left about five inches below the collar bone and ranged inward and slightly downward, the other shot entered the stomach, and ranged upward and out.The wound about the left nipple went straight.The cuticle and muscle under it coincided exactly."If Palmer had had his arm raised as stated, the skin over the wound would not have fitted perfectly around the hole made by the shot; but when his arm dropped in a natural position, the skin would have extended over to the edge of the wound.If the wound was in the left breast, beyond the left nipple, I think the raising of the right arm would slightly affect the muscle and cuticle there.
The account of the shooting as given by Fletcher Hougue, a witness for the State, is as follows:
The defendant himself testified as follows:
Another witness, John White, for appellant, testifies as to the immediate transaction as follows:
William Smith testified:
Other witnesses testify for appellant as to the open knife being found where the deceased was lying, and identify the knife as the knife of deceased.The sheriff testified to finding a small pearl-handled knife in the pocket of deceased.And witnesses on behalf of the State, in rebuttal, identified the small knife taken from Palmer's pocket by the sheriff as Palmer's knife, and they could not identify the other as his knife.There was testimony tending to show that Palmer had two pocket knives, and also testimony tending to show the contrary.There was testimony on behalf of the State to impeach the character of appellant's witness, White, who claims to have seen the deceased with his knife drawn to cut defendant, and also testimony tending to show that White was not there.
In rebuttal on behalf of the State, J. W. Tharpe testified ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Bowman v. Frith
-
Hydrick v. State
... ... was exerted over the jury. When that is done, the purity of ... the verdict is established. Thompson v ... State, 26 Ark. 323; Dolan v ... State, 40 Ark. 454; Vaughan v ... State, 57 Ark. 1, 20 S.W. 588; Payne v ... State, 66 Ark. 545, 52 S.W. 276; Frame v ... State, 73 Ark. 501, 84 S.W. 711 ... It is ... also urged that the verdict was decided by lot. This fact may ... be shown by an examination of the jurors themselves, as well ... as by other evidence. Kirby's Digest, §§ 2422, ... 2423. But we do not think that there ... ...
-
Vasser v. State
...the deputy, we do not see that the court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict on account of this alleged misconduct. Frame v. State, 73 Ark. 501, 84 S.W. 711. affidavit shows that the jury passed over the ground on account of an emergency; that the visit was more by accident than desi......
- Hammons v. State