Hill v. State, CR

Decision Date17 December 1973
Docket NumberNo. CR,CR
Citation502 S.W.2d 649,255 Ark. 720
PartiesRoy HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 73--120.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Harold L. Hall, Public Defender, Little Rock, for appellant.

Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by O. H. Hargraves, Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

Charged with first degree murder, the appellant Hill was convicted of second degree murder and was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to imprisonment for 26 years. He argues two points for reversal.

It is first contended that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce hearsay evidence. Hill and the decedent, Coy Daniels, had been neighbors in Dallas, Texas. In September, 1972, Hill, with his own family and three of Daniels's children, moved to North Little Rock, where Hill rented a house. A day or two later Daniels came to North Little Rock and drove to Hill's house at about four o'clock in the morning. When Daniels was seen, someone turned off the lights inside the house; but Daniels walked in the front door and turned on a light in the living room. Within a few moments Hill shot and killed Daniels, with a shotgun. Hill's theory of the case was that he acted in self-defense.

The State called as a witness Mrs. Joel Lester, who had known the Daniels family in Dallas before she moved to North Little Rock. The court permitted Mrs. Lester to testify that at about 7:30 or 8:00 o'clock on the evening before the homicide Daniels had telephoned Mrs. Lester (apparently from Dallas) and had said that he was going to come and get his children and put them back in school.

Mrs. Lester's testimony was admissible, as tending to show that Daniels's mental state was not one of hostility toward Hill when Daniels went to Hill's house. We have admitted similar statements by the victim of a homicide as part of the res gestae. Sullivan v. State, 171 Ark. 768, 286 S.W. 939 (1926); Spivey v. State, 114 Ark. 267, 169 S.W. 949 (1914). It is really more accurate to say that such statements are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Morgan, Statements Evidencing Mental Condition, 3 Ark.L.Rev. 182 (1949). By analogy, our rule is that when self-defense is in issue, the victim's uncommunicated threats against the defendant are admissible to show who was the aggressor. Decker v. State, 234 Ark. 518, 353 S.W.2d 168, 9, A.L.R.2d 1 (1962); Wilson v. State, 184 Ark. 252, 42 S.W.2d 378 (1931). Since the accused may prove such uncommunicated statements to show an attitude of hostility, the State may prove uncommunicated statements, such as that made to Mrs. Lester, to indicate a peaceful intention.

We pass to the appellant's second contention. Hill, testifying in his own defense, admitted three earlier felony convictions. The State's attorney, in responding to an objection made to his cross-examination of Hill, said to the court: 'Your Honor, he has testified that he has been convicted of three felonies, and I intend to show quite a few more things.' The court sustained defense counsel's objection to the State's line of questioning.

Defense couns...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Cary v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1976
    ...an admonition. Hathcock v. State, 256 Ark. 707, 510 S.W.2d 276. See also Yarbrough v. State, 257 Ark. 732, 520 S.W.2d 227; Hill v. State, 255 Ark. 720, 502 S.W.2d 649; Parrott v. State, 246 Ark. 672, 439 S.W.2d 924. We find no abuse of discretion in this The question of the sufficiency of t......
  • Mays v. State, CR78-84
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1978
    ...could not be served by a continuation of the trial. See: Gammel & Spann v. State, 259 Ark. 96, 531 S.W.2d 474 (1976); Hill v. State, 255 Ark. 720, 502 S.W.2d 649 (1973); Jackson v. State, 245 Ark. 331, 432 S.W.2d 876 In a case involving improper statements of a prosecuting attorney in his o......
  • Gustafson v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • December 5, 1979
    ...has largely been within the province of the trial court. Gammel and Spann v. State, 259 Ark. 96, 531 S.W.2d 474 (1976); Hill v. State, 255 Ark. 720, 502 S.W.2d 649 (1973); Johnson v. State, 254 Ark. 293, 493 S.W.2d 115 As was stated in Simmons v. State, 233 Ark. 616, 346 S.W.2d 197 (1961): ......
  • Gammel v. State, CR
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1976
    ...granted only where there has been an error so prejudicial that justice could not be served by continuation of the trial. Hill v. State, 255 Ark. 720, 502 S.W.2d 649. It should not be granted when any possible prejudice could be removed by an admonition to the jury. Russey v. State, 257 Ark.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT