Herron v. State
| Decision Date | 06 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | 4220 |
| Citation | 154 S.W.2d 351,202 Ark. 927 |
| Parties | HERRON v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Little River Circuit Court; Minor W. Milwee, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Seth C. Reynolds, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The appellant was convicted in Little River circuit court of murder in the first degree, the jury returning the following verdict: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the information." Motion for new trial was filed and overruled, and the case is here on appeal.
Willard Locke testified in substance that he was sheriff of Little River county and had been deputy sheriff for over twelve years; he investigated the case against the appellant and found that both Nathan and Eugene Frierson were killed on Little River. This witness described the house and the roads and highways; the road runs through a graveyard about two and a half miles north and west of the house where the killing occurred, about a quarter of a mile from the road to the house where Luther Richards lives; the road ends at the farm where the killing occurred; the road runs to a gate and it is over 250 yards from the gate to the house. This witness testified that appellant told him that he went through the fence down to the lot and heard a negro in the lot feeding stock; that appellant went out to the lot, sat behind a tree until the man went back to the house; this was one of the men who was killed; after this man had fed the stock, appellant slipped through the fence in the yard and walked up to the window; that the curtain was torn and he could see this man behind the stove in the corner; could see the top of his head behind the curtain and he stuck his gun through the window and shot at his arm, which was all he could see; he first killed Eugene Frierson, killed him outright; the other one died the following day. Witness found shots in the walls of the house; it would not have been possible for the shots in those three places to have come from the same shell; there was a window and three doors in the west front room. Appellant told witness where the horse was tied.
This witness was corroborated by Arthur Sellman, a deputy sheriff and by Willie Richards, who swore that the negro who was killed had on a coat and was on the floor. The coat was then offered in evidence.
A number of other witnesses testified, but the fact that appellant shot and killed two men, Nathan and Eugene Frierson, is undisputed. Nathan Frierson and appellant had, according to appellant's testimony, been having trouble for the past two or three years. Appellant testified that Nathan Frierson had been paying attentions to appellant's wife; he had talked with him and tried to get him to quit and leave her alone, but Nathan Frierson said that if appellant's wife did not come with him he was going to kill her and if appellant interfered he was going to kill him. Appellant claims to have gotten the shells for the purpose of rabbit hunting; but he did not go hunting and the evidence is in conflict as to why he did not. He says he did not know who lived in the house where he killed the negro; he was simply looking for his wife and not thinking about trouble at all; when he looked in at the window he saw Nathan Frierson with his arm around his wife, and he immediately shot; the other persons in the room ran into the kitchen and Nathan Frierson who was shot first by appellant was killed immediately; appellant then shot and killed Eugene Frierson. Appellant testified that when he saw Nathan Frierson through the window sitting on a bench with his hands around appellant's wife, it made him so mad he shot him; he shot him because he had told him to let his wife alone, and after appellant had left home Nathan came and got her; he said he just pulled his gun and shot and all of them started running to the kitchen; he stood there watching Nathan to see if he was going to get a gun; he did not know he had killed him.
It is contended by appellant that he was justified in the killing or if not justified, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree. The appellant was not tried for killing Nathan Frierson with whom he had trouble about his wife, but for killing Eugene Frierson, whom he shot in the back. It is his contention that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State, 4675
...299 S.W. 40. The jury is the sole and exclusive judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony. Herron v. State, 202 Ark. 927, 154 S.W.2d 351; Waterman v. State, 202 Ark. 934, 154 S.W.2d 813. The evidence will be viewed by this court in the light most favorable to s......
-
Griffin v. State
... ... State, ... 109 Ark. 475, 160 S.W. 206; McCown v ... State, 125 Ark. 597, 188 S.W. 547; Burns v ... State, 155 Ark. 1, 243 S.W. 963; Sutton v ... State, 162 Ark. 438, 258 S.W. 632; Hicks v ... State, 193 Ark. 46, 97 S.W.2d 900; Lee v ... State, 200 Ark. 964, 141 S.W.2d 842; Herron ... v. State, 202 Ark. 927, 154 S.W.2d 351; ... Bradshaw v. State, 206 Ark. 635, 176 S.W.2d ... 912; Trotter v. State, 206 Ark. 690, 177 ... S.W.2d 173 ... [210 ... Ark. 392] It is finally argued by appellant there was error ... in the refusal of the lower court to give ... ...
-
Brown v. State
... ... testimony in the record to support the verdict. We have ... already stated that in our opinion there was substantial ... testimony to support this verdict. The rule of law by which ... this question is determined in this state was most recently ... restated in Herron v. State, 154 S.W.2d ... 351, in which this court said: "Under the settled rule ... of practice the jury is the judge of the credibility of the ... witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and ... it is also a well settled rule that the evidence admitted at ... the trial will, ... ...
-
Early v. State, 4841
...its debt. The jury was the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. See Herron v. State, 202 Ark. 927, 154 S.W.2d 351. The verdict must stand when supported by substantial evidence. The rule is well established also that in passing on the le......