Hall v. State

• Decision Date: 22 June 1914
• Docket Number: 58
• Citation: 168 S.W. 1122,113 Ark. 454
• Parties: HALL v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

168 S.W. 1122

113 Ark. 454

HALL v. STATE

No. 58

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 22, 1914

Appeal from Conway Circuit Court; Hugh Basham, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The defendant, Charley Hall, was indicted for the crime of murder in the first degree, charged to have been committed by shooting John Williams.

Lee Rhodes, for the State, testified: John Williams, a white man and Layton Fulton, a negro, had a difficulty about some stock, and the negro knocked him down with a stick. Williams left the scene of the difficulty, and came on down to a neighbor's house and got a shotgun. I approached him and tried to get him not to go back. He was angry and would not stop. I went with him and got him to give me his knife, but was unable to get him to give me the gun. As we were going along a road which ran between the defendant Hall's house and lot and barn, the defendant came out into the road and stopped us. Williams told the defendant to go back; that we were not going to bother him, but were after Layton Fulton and were going to the house of a man named Cross, who lived some distance beyond there. The defendant told Williams that he would have to get back and get off of his premises. Williams insisted that he was going to Cross's and was not going to the defendant's house, and that he did not intend to harm the defendant. The defendant, Hall, walked up to Williams, took hold of his gun and wrested it away from him, extracted the shells from it, and handed it to a negro named Steve Whitley, who was with him. The defendant abused Williams and myself, cursing us and telling us to get back that we could not mistreat him, and finally threw his own gun down on Williams, which had been handed to him by Steve Whitley after the defendant had taken Williams's gun away from him. When the defendant drew his gun on Williams Williams grabbed the gun and both he and myself begged the defendant not to shoot and said that we did not intend to harm him. Steve Whitley then took hold of the gun which the defendant, Williams and myself were scuffling over, and jerked it out of Williams's hand. Williams then started to whirl and run, and the defendant threw the gun down on him again and shot him, killing him instantly. The deceased fell in the road where the difficulty took place. There was no fence around the yard and house of the defendant, but there were indications of where an old fence had been. There was a road running by the defendant's house between his yard and the barn, and it was in this road that the difficulty and subsequent killing took place. The road in question was not a public road, but was one that had been traveled by those living in the neighborhood for several years. The killing took place about fifteen steps from where the yard fence had formerly been. After the defendant shot the deceased, I cut him with Williams's knife and then dropped the knife down on the ground.

Other witnesses for the State testified that they heard the defendant talking in an angry tone of voice and came to the scene of the difficulty. They corroborated the testimony of Lee Rhodes, and one of them said that just as he came up the defendant said: "You God damned son-of-a-bitch, get back out of here and get away. I have got a damned good notion to kill both of you."

All of the witnesses for the State say that the defendant told the deceased to go back; that he would kill him and those with him if he did not; that the deceased told the defendant that he was not after him, and was going on up the road. They all stated that the killing took place in the road a short distance beyond the pump and between the pump and the house. An officer who arrested the defendant stated that the next morning after the killing, the defendant told him that he did not kill the deceased but that Steve Whitley had shot him.

The defendant, Charley Hall, testified in his own behalf as follows: I have lived down in the bottom for twenty years and never had any trouble with the white people before. I had been away from home on the day of the killing and met John Williams on my return home. He told me that some of the negroes had hit him and that he was going home and kill them all. There had never been any hard feeling between us up to this time. I went on home and telephoned to Plumerville for an officer, telling him there was going to be trouble and that I wanted protection. Layton Fulton had taken refuge in my house. Shortly after I returned home I saw John Williams and Lee Rhodes coming up the road toward my house with a gun. I took my gun and started out to meet them. On second thought, I handed my gun to Steve Whitley, who was with me and started ahead of him to meet Williams and Rhodes. There is an open way between my house and the lot and garden which was usually traveled by the neighbors. I met Williams and Rhodes near my pump and tried to persuade them to go back. After I had taken Williams's gun away from him they advanced on me, and either Williams or Rhodes stabbed me. I then brought up my gun, which Steve Whitley handed to me, and shot Williams in order to save my own life. I was trying to keep them from going into my house and to keep them from stabbing me when I shot the deceased. The deceased was not in my yard when I shot him, but he was in the road right by it and was going toward my house.

Steve Whitley corroborated the testimony of the defendant, and further stated that the deceased was the one who stabbed the defendant; that it was nearly dark at the time. Whitley also said that when he saw Williams and Rhodes approaching he told them that Layton Fulton was not in the defendant's house.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree and fixed the punishment of the defendant at twenty-one years in the State penitentiary. From the judgment of conviction the defendant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

W. P. Strait, for appellant.

1. The facts do not justify a conviction.

2. Remarks of counsel were prejudicial. 68 Ark. 481; 72 Id. 469; 75 Id. 577; 70 Id. 307; 65 Id. 619; 87 Id. 464; 74 Id. 279; 62 Id. 536; 65 Id. 389; Ib. 475; 69 Id. 648; 71 Id. 415; 73 Id. 453; 74 Id. 210.

3. Defendant had a right to act upon the facts and circumstances as they appeared to him, exercising his reason and judgment and viewing them from his standpoint, and the court erred in refusing to so charge the jury. 69 Ark. 649; 59 Id. 132; 75 Id. 350; Wharton on Hom. (3 ed.), § 340; 55 Ark. 593; Ib. 604.

4. Defendant had the right to interpose both the right of self-defense and defense of his home. 55 Ark. 606; Ib. 601; 119 Pa. 287.

5. A man's dwelling (home) includes the property immediately surrounding it and used in connection therewith, such as yard, garden, etc. 58 N.H. 609; 2 A. 539; 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 59; 76 Ind. 467. "Habitation" includes surroundings, whether fenced or not. 25 Am. St. 17; 105 Ala. 26; 33 Ore. 110; 1 Shannon (Tenn.) 505; 93 Mech. 609; 94 Ala. 4.

Wm. L. Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.

1. The remarks of counsel were not prejudicial. Wolfe v. State, 107 Ark.

2. The instructions cover every phase of murder, and have been approved. 76 Ark. 515.

3. The trial was fair and impartial and the evidence sufficient.

OPINION

HART, J., (after stating the facts).

The court gave the following instruction at the request of the defendant:

"No. 5. You are instructed that if defendant had reason to believe he or any one at his house would probably be attacked, then as a matter of law he had a perfect right to arm himself and prepare not only for his own defense, but that of his home and all persons being therein at the time; and if deceased, either alone or with others acting with him, advanced upon defendant's home for the purpose of renewing a difficulty with or attacking any person therein, defendant would not be required to retreat, but may stand his ground and meet force with force, and if necessary to prevent either himself or any person in his home from receiving great bodily injury at the hands of the deceased, or him and those with him and acting with him, either or all of them, or if situated as he was, viewing the facts and circumstances as they appeared to him, and from his standpoint he had reason to believe and did believe he or any person at his house was in imminent and immediate danger of losing his life or receiving some great bodily injury at the hands of the deceased or him and those acting with him, any or either of them, and in good faith, without fault or negligence on his part, he shot and killed the deceased, then such killing would in law be justified, and you should acquit the defendant, although you may believe such killing unnecessary or that such danger did not exist."

Counsel for defendant also asked the court to give additional instructions with reference to the defense of his habitation, and error is assigned because the court refused to give them. Counsel contends that instruction No. 5, above set out, limited the right of defendant to shoot the deceased to the defense of his own person or some inmate of his house, but omitted to charge the jury with reference to the right of the defendant to defend his home.

We do not think this instruction restricted or limited the defendant to a defense of his own person or some inmate of his house. It went further, and, in plain and express terms, also submitted to the jury the law of justifiable homicide in the defense of the defendant's home. In addition to instruction No. 5, the court, at the request of the defendant, read to the jury sections 1795 and 1796 of Kirby's Digest, which are as follows:

"...