Griffin v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1946 |
| Docket Number | 4417 |
| Citation | 196 S.W.2d 484,210 Ark. 388 |
| Parties | Griffin v. State |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; Thomas E. Toler, Judge.
Affirmed.
Ben M. McCray, for appellant.
Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Earl N Williams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appellant, Beulah Griffin, charged by information with the offense of murder in the first degree alleged to have been committed by shooting to death Helen Mason, another negro woman, was by a jury convicted of voluntary manslaughter and her punishment fixed at two and one-half years confinement in the penitentiary. She has appealed.
For reversal it is first urged by appellant that the verdict was not supported by any substantial testimony.
Appellant admitted doing the shooting, but claimed that she fired in self-defense and that she intended not to kill Helen, but only to stop her in her hostile advance upon appellant. At the time of the difficulty, appellant was operating a restaurant in the negro section of Benton, Arkansas. Helen had been patronizing appellant's place of business and a dispute arose as to an alleged overcharge in Helen's bill.
Sonny Green, a witness for the state, testified that he was asleep in a little back room of appellant's cafe when the trouble between appellant and deceased began and that appellant requested him to call the officers; that appellant said to Helen twice: "Don't follow me"; and Helen said to appellant: "Please give me my dollar and a half"; that the gun was then fired; that he saw nothing in Helen's hand; that when he went to phone the officers Helen put her hands on him, but he pushed her back.
The coroner testified that he found Helen's body lying on the floor and that she died from a bullet wound either in the heart or "the big artery of the heart"; that Helen had nothing in her hands except a paper sack which was clutched in her left hand and which contained an old, thin rayon dress rolled up and a skirt rolled up in another paper sack. There was no proof that Helen had any weapon at the time of the killing.
Appellant testified in substance: That Helen, after having previously asserted that she had been overcharged by appellant, came back to appellant's cafe.
Several witnesses testified that Helen was quarrelsome and bore a bad reputation, and it was shown that appellant had the reputation of being a peaceful and industrious woman.
When the correctness of a verdict of guilty is being considered by us on appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ritholz v. Dodge
...196 S.W.2d 479 210 Ark. 404 Ritholz v. Dodge, Chancellor. Arkansas State Board of Optometry v. Dodge, Chancellor Nos. 4-7993, 4-7994Supreme Court of ArkansasSeptember 30, 1946 ... ... Petition for ... ...
- Johnson v. Commissioner
-
Reynolds v. State
... ... so considered, if we find it substantial, we must affirm ... Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233, 161 S.W.2d ... The ... weight to be given the testimony and all reasonable ... inferences to be drawn therefrom were questions for the jury ... to determine. Griffin v. State, 210 Ark ... 388, 196 S.W.2d 484 ... Here, ... the jury evidently found that appellant did not kill Othel ... Ashley in self-defense, as claimed, and we think there was ... substantial testimony to support their verdict ... 2 ... ...