Hadaway v. State
| Decision Date | 27 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | 4564 |
| Citation | 222 S.W.2d 799,215 Ark. 658 |
| Parties | Hadaway v. State |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied October 3, 1949.
Appeal from Sevier Circuit Court; Wesley Howard, Judge.
Affirmed.
Byron Goodson, for appellant.
Ike Murry, Attorney General and Robert Downie, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
A jury convicted appellant, Hadaway, of aggravated assault (Ark. Stat. 1947, § 41-605) and assessed his punishment at twenty days imprisonment in the County Jail and a fine of $ 100. From the judgment is this appeal.
For reversal, appellant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and (2) that the court erred in giving, over his objections, State's Instruction No. 2.
December 24, 1948, Doug Kimmey and a companion by the name of Rowe while traveling in an automobile driven by Rowe, collided with another car in the outskirts of Lockesburg. Both (Kimmey and Rowe) were intoxicated. A police officer came on the scene. While he, Kimmey, Rowe and the driver of the other automobile were discussing the incident, Kimmey walked away and entered a pool hall nearby, where the officer found him talking to appellant, operator of the pool hall. For some reason, not made clear, appellant and Kimmey became involved in a fight. Kimmey knocked appellant down. Appellant got up and advanced on Kimmey with a knife, struck him several times, cutting him on his arm and wrist. At this point, a bystander knocked Kimmey down and while he lay on the floor, appellant evaded the officer and kicked Kimmey twice in the face, before the officer succeeded in subduing him.
A witness testified:
Without attempting to detail all the testimony, the above evidence was substantial and sufficient, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, as we must, to show that appellant "without considerable provocation," with "an abandoned and malignant disposition," assaulted Kimmey with a deadly weapon with the intent to inflict bodily injury, and warranted the jury's verdict. Allgood v. State, 206 Ark. 699, 177 S.W.2d 928; Bennett and Holiman v. State, 201 Ark. 237, 144 S.W.2d 476, 131 A. L. R. 908; and Holland v. State, 198 Ark. 933, 132 S.W.2d 190.
There was no error in giving State's instruction No. 2, in the circumstances. This instruction provided: "No one is allowed to exercise the right of self-defense if he willingly enters into the fight or combat; and, if you find and believe from the evidence that the defendant willingly entered into the combat with Doug Kimmey, he cannot avail himself of the plea of necessary self-defense to justify an assault with a knife or other deadly weapon."
No specific objection was made to this instruction. Appellant objected "generally to each and every given State's instruction."
The record reflects that, along with correct instructions given by the court, at appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Withrow v. Wright
-
Blaylack v. State
...bar we must view it, on appeal, in the light most favorable to the State. Allgood v. State, 206 Ark. 699, 177 S.W.2d 928; Hadaway v. State, 215 Ark. 658, 222 S.W.2d 799. Appellant and the prosecuting witness, Foster, were strangers. They met at a picnic and engaged in an argument on the sub......