Fuller v. State

• Decision Date: 09 October 1950
• Docket Number: No. 4630,4630
• Citation: 232 S.W.2d 988,217 Ark. 679
• Parties: FULLER v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 988

232 S.W.2d 988

217 Ark. 679

FULLER v. STATE.

No. 4630.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 9, 1950.

Batchelor & Batchelor, Van Buren, for appellant.

Ike Murry, Atty. Gen., Robert Downie, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

LEFLAR, Justice.

Grover Fuller appeals from conviction under an information charging him with stealing two cows from one Richmond. Fuller admitted that he took the cows from Richmond's pasture near Van Buren on the night of March 7, 1950, and hauled them to Springdale, where he sold them. His defense was that he believed the pasture had been rented by and was in possession of another person, not Richmond, and that the cows were two that had been stolen from him some time previously by this other person. It is clear that this belief was mistaken one, but if he honestly held the belief it was a good defense to the criminal charge of grand larceny, Wilson v. State, 96 Ark. 148, 131 S.W. 336, 41 L.R.A., N.S., 549, Ann.Cas.1912B 339, and he was entitled to present his evidence on the point fully and fairly.

The first witness to testify on defendant's behalf was Ben Mayo, high school athletic director who had coached Fuller when the latter had been a football player at the Fort Smith High School in the 1930s, and had kept up with Fuller and his family since then. Mayo was offered to testify to Fuller's good reputation in the community and also to the fact that though sane, he was inclined to be neurotic, particularly after he suffered a severe head wound while in military service during the war, and was therefore more likely to hold the belief relied upon as a defense than an ordinary man would be. As a preliminary, defendant's attorney had Mayo identify himself, then asked him eight questions, all answered briefly, which traced the acquaintanceship between Fuller and Mayo from Fuller's high school days to a time shortly before the alleged theft. The last of the series of questions was 'What business was he (Fuller) engaged in here?' Mayo's answer was 'He was in the dairy business.'

At this point, the Circuit Judge said 'Just a minute, Mr. Batchelor, we will take too much time here if you expect to prove the reputation of Fuller by this teacher. There is no need to go into all of this. Now you can spend a lot of time on a man's acquaintances and visits and all that. But that wouldn't help the jury and it isn't admissible here.'

Defendant's attorney recorded his exceptions to the Judge's remarks.

The Judge then continued 'Well, it is just taking up the time of the jury for nothing. He could talk about his football players from now until tomorrow night but that would not help the jury in deciding this matter.'

Defendant's attorney again recorded exceptions, and asked 'Your honor, do you stop me at this time?'

The Judge resumed 'Yes, sir, from pursuing that line of questioning. At this time these men here on the jury have something else to do besides listen to that. They want to try this case, and it is my duty to confine the testimony to points that are material.'

Defendant's attorney once more recorded exceptions, and suggested that the matter might be discussed further in another room out of the jury's hearing.

The Judge then said 'The only thing, gentlemen, we just have this to do and these men want to be about their business when they finish this, and if we permit this teacher and other teachers to talk about all these things and their acquaintances, it will take three times as long as should be necessary.'

The colloquy continued a little longer, then the Judge agreed that they should go to another room away from the jury. After further discussion in the separate room, Mayo was allowed to resume his interrupted testimony. There were some further interruptions by the Judge, of the same general tenor as those just quoted, but not going as far in casting aspersions on ...