Hankins v. State

• Decision Date: 22 December 1917
• Docket Number: 70
• Citation: 201 S.W. 832,133 Ark. 38
• Parties: HANKINS v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

201 S.W. 832

133 Ark. 38

HANKINS v. STATE

No. 70

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 22, 1917

Appeal from Drew Circuit Court; Turner Butler, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Henry & Harris, for appellant.

1. The record fails to show that defendant was present at each substantive step of the trial. 110 Ark. 523.

2. It was error to limit the time of the argument. 58 Ark. 367; 2 R. C. L. 407-8.

3. Incompetent testimony was admitted. Heflin, Dildoy and King without having qualified as experts, or showing such an intimate acquaintance, etc., as to qualify them to testify as nonexperts, were allowed to testify. This was incompetent. 120 Ark. 311; 106 Id. 362. Direct and leading questions were asked. 114 Ark. 412.

4. There was error in the instructions. 120 Ark. 554; 114 Id. 412.

5. Defendant was insane when tried. Kirby & Castle's Digest § 2447.

6. The verdict was contrary to the evidence.

John D Arbuckle, Attorney General, and T. W. Campbell, Assistant, for appellee.

1. The record shows that defendant was present at every substantive step taken. 110 Ark. 523; or waived, 108 Id. 191; Scruggs v. State, ms.

2. Limiting the time of argument is within the sound discretion of the court; no abuse is shown or undue limit. 38 Ark. 304; 100 Ala. 26; 14 Neb. 572; 90 Ill. 117; 149 Ky. 495; 21 Mo. 257; 70 N.C. 241; 55 Wash. 675. See also 88 Neb. 464; 60 Tex.Crim. 236; 148 Ky. 80; Ib. 199; 42 Wash. 540; 110 Ala. 11; 112 Id. 1; 70 N.C. 241; 136 Mo. 74; 122 Mich. 284.

3. Proper foundation was laid for the admission of expert testimony. 120 Ark. 311. But defendant "camouflaged" his objections and specifically objects here for the first time. 116 Ark. 307; 58 Id. 353; 60 Id. 550.

4. There is no error in the instructions. They state the law. 54 Ark. 588; 120 Id. 530; 95 Id. 48; 103 Id. 21; 105 Id. 467; 114 Id. 412. See also 194 S.W. 865.

5. Defendant was not insane when tried. No suspension of the trial was asked. 79 Ark. 293; 94 Id. 65. Nor petition for inquiry as to his sanity, etc. 110 Id. 523.

6. The evidence is ample. 104 Ark. 162; 101 Id. 51. The burden to show insanity was on defendant. He failed to convince the jury.

OPINION

WOOD, J.

A little before midnight on Wednesday, August 15th, 1917, Clarence Hankins shot and killed his wife, Willie Bob Hankins, who, at the time, was staying at the home of her mother, Mrs. Symantha Simmons, in the town of Monticello, Drew County, Arkansas. He was indicted for the crime of murder in the first degree, was tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life in the State penitentiary, and he appeals to this court.

The killing was admitted, and appellant set up the defense of insanity. The testimony adduced on behalf of the State tended to show that about a month prior to the killing, appellant and his wife "had not been getting along well." She had gone to the home of her mother because of his mistreatment of her. On Tuesday night before the killing he went to the home of his mother-in-law, so she testifies, and "seemed as kind and friendly as he had been at any time." He had two small children. His wife and children went to bed about 7:30 p. m. Clarence went out on the gallery and sat awhile, then went in and played on the organ awhile, then went out on the gallery and smoked a cigarette, then went and got some water, then went back on the gallery and sat awhile. Then he went into his wife's room, waked her up and began to fuss with her. He then went out in the yard. His wife said that he was going home to stay, but directly he came back and asked for his shoes. His wife said: "Clarence, I ought to take a chair and knock you over the head." He replied, "Willie Bob, if you put as much as the weight of your hand on me I will kill you." The next night he came back and entered the house through the back way; asked Mrs. Simmons how much he owed her for board and told her he was going away. When she informed him how much he owed her he made no reply, but went across the hall into the room where his wife and babies were sleeping. His wife got up and went into the hall. He told her he was going away. When they got on the gallery she said, "Clarence, why did you go off and talk about me?" He said, "Willie Bob, I did not do it." She said, "You did talk about me to two or three." He said, "It's a lie, I did not talk about you." In just a little while a pistol shot was heard and she said, "Oh, Clarence has killed me." He then ran off. Mrs. Simmons stated she saw no cause for his leaving her house on Tuesday night. He came out on the porch as usual and talked with her the same as he always had.

Two or three witnesses testified that on Wednesday night a short time before the killing, appellant was trying to borrow a gun and stated that he was going to a certain place and didn't know but that he would have trouble, that he was going to leave for a little while and it might blow over. One of them let appellant have his pistol. Another testified that he had a conversation with appellant Wednesday morning. Appellant said that on Monday night after he and his wife had been in bed awhile his wife got up and went out, and a little while afterwards, he got up and went out. He found his wife out there about the lot and there was a man out there, who came across the branch towards the barn. Clarence said he ought to shoot him but thought it was best to go away. This witness testified, on cross-examination, that he had known the appellant for eight years and had been working with him for four or five years; that within the last month before the killing he had noticed a change in appellant's disposition, his appearance, and actions." He was inattentive and seemed like something was bearing on his mind."

Appellant told another witness on Wednesday, before the killing that night, about separating from his wife the night before, and said he was going to leave and talked as though he wanted to injure her some way. The witness saw appellant in jail the next day, and appellant then said to witness that he was sorry for what he had done and wished he had done what witness had advised him to do, saying that if he had he would not have been in the trouble he was then in. He remarked that "they were liable to break his neck, but that death was short that way and would be that quick," snapping his finger. In the conversation, he said that he was leaving his wife on account of someone being there. The witness who had this conversation was a brother-in-law to appellant, and stated that the talk about his wife had been worrying appellant a whole lot.

On behalf of the appellant the testimony tended to show that his reputation for peace and quiet was good. One witness, who had known appellant all his life, stated that about thirteen years before appellant stayed at her house about three or four months, during which time he was struck by lightning, which rendered him unconscious eight or ten minutes. After that he could not work in the sun at all, and did not seem like the same boy.

Another witness, a sister-in-law, had known him about three years, and had lived in the same house with him for nearly a year, and had worked in the mill with him. She stated that she noticed a difference in the way he worked after his first separation from his wife, which occurred about three or four weeks before the killing. After the separation he would often quit his work for hours and just stare around the shop. She thought he was insane.

Several witnesses who had known him intimately and had had an opportunity to observe him closely testified that after his first separation from his wife he seemed very nervous and absent-minded, neglected his work, and tried to avoid people. He could not remember anything, and made a good many mistakes in his work.

It was shown that there was considerable talk around the mill about his wife and another man. His sister testified that he worried a great deal about his trouble, and got to where he could not attend to his work. "He would not notice us. He was like he was in a dream or something."

Another witness, who had known him for twelve years, and had worked with him pretty nearly all that time at the mill, stated that he noticed a great change in the appearance of appellant before the killing. "He seemed to be in powerful low spirts." Monday night preceding the killing, witness met the appellant and he did not notice witness nor speak to him. He did not seem to realize who witness was or that he was any one at all. This caused witness to say to himself, "Old boy, you're all in; just about ready for the asylum."

Appellant's brother-in-law, who had grown up with him, testified that from the time of the first separation it seemed that appellant's head "was giving way on him right along, and he did not seem in a normal state of mind at all." He came to witness' house three or four hours after the homicide and was in an awful fix. He said, "Don't let no bunch get hold of me." He was muddy up to his knees and did not have on any hat. They carried him to town and turned him over to the jailer, and when he was searched a small vial of chloroform was found in his pocket.

Another sister testified that the morning before the killing he came to her house and acted very peculiarly; did not speak a word, but went through all the drawers of her bureau, which caused her to remark to her husband that she "believed he was going crazy." She "firmly believed that he was losing his mind."

One of the witnesses testified that he had known the appellant ten or fifteen years; that the morning before the killing the appellant came to witness' store and told him he was going to Hampton to deliver some goods and collect for some goods for an installment house. Witness said...