Jenkins v. State, 4754

• Decision Date: 26 October 1953
• Docket Number: No. 4754,4754
• Parties: JENKINS v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 784

261 S.W.2d 784

222 Ark. 511

JENKINS v. STATE.

No. 4754.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 26, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1953.

Creekmore Wallace, Pryor, Oklahoma, Q. Byrum Hurst, Hot Springs, for appellant.

Tom Gentry, Atty. Gen., Thorp Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MILLWEE, Justice.

Appellant Bill Jenkins was charged and convicted of murder in the first degree for the killing of Cleo Jones, a 16 year old girl, on February 17, 1952. The jury fixed his punishment at death. At the close of the evidence of the state and at the conclusion of all the testimony, appellant by proper motions challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. It is now earnestly insisted that the state failed to prove premeditation and deliberation on the part of appellant.

The evidence disclosed that on the date in question appellant was living on highway 88 near Hot Springs about 500 feet from the home of Lester Cox. Appellant was separated from his wife, who lived about a quarter mile away on the same road. Marie Pitts had been keeping house for appellant for nearly four years. Deceased, Cleo Jones, moved to appellant's home about three weeks before the killing and was employed at a 'drive-in' operated by Lester Cox in the vicinity.

On the morning in question, appellant visited a night club from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m., where he drank intoxicants. He then drove his truck to Cox's 'drive-in' where he stayed until later in the morning.

On the same morning, Marie Pitts and Cleo Jones decided to go to Pine Bluff to visit Marie's sister, and they had started to town to telephone the sister when they met appellant, who was driving his truck. The two girls entered the truck, and the appellant drove to Cox's drive-in, where they had coffee and spent considerable time. During the drive back to appellant's residence, Marie and the appellant quarreled and the latter became angry about the planned trip to Pine Bluff. The three drove to appellant's residence where they all got out of the truck. Appellant went into his house, and Marie and the deceased walked about 500 feet to the Lester Cox residence. Deceased entered the Cox home, and Marie walked from the porch toward appellant. As she closed the front gate appellant fired three shots at her with a pistol, wounding her in the arm and shoulder.

When Marie fell, appellant walked on to the Cox house with the pistol in his hand, and more shooting occurred in the house. Appellant then walked from the rear of the house, with the gun still in his hand, and stopped momentarily as he observed Marie still lying on the ground. He then drove off in his truck. Shortly thereafter, Cleo Jones was found lying in the doorway of the Cox home that leads from the kitchen to the back porch. There were two bullets imbedded in her brain, and she was unconscious until her death a few hours later. The shooting occurred about 10 a.m., and appellant was apprehended about three hours later while driving his truck. In the meantime, he had engaged in further drinking and was either drunk or in some other kind of stupor at the time of his arrest. There was nothing in his walk or demeanor at the time of the shooting to indicate to a next-door neighbor that he was then intoxicated.

Lester Cox and appellant were close friends and partners in the livestock business. Cox worked at his 'drive-in' until 7:30 a.m. and was home in bed at the time of the shooting. As witnesses for the state, Cox and Marie Pitts were reluctant and hostile, and each claimed to have suffered an unusual lapse of memory concerning certain facts contained in written statements made by them shortly after the killing. They also gave an account of deceased's having poured a phenobarbital solution in appellant's coffee at the Cox 'drive-in' shortly before the shooting. This account had not been previously disclosed to investigating officers, and the jury in all probability regarded it as a fictitious afterthought.

Appellant argues that the foregoing evidence, even when considered in the light most favorable to the state, was wholly insufficient to show premeditation and deliberation.

The traditional view of this court on the question of premeditation and deliberation was expressed by Judge Battle, speaking for the court, in Green v. State, 51 Ark. 189, 10 S.W. 266, 267: 'In order to constitute the killing of a human being murder in the first degree, there must be a specific intent to take life formed in the mind of the slayer before the act of killing was done. It is not necessary, however, that the intention be conceived for any particular length of time before the killing. It may be formed and deliberately executed in a very brief space of time. If it was the conception of a moment, but the result of deliberation and premeditation, reason being on its throne, it would be sufficient. The law fixes no time in which it must be formed, but leaves its existence as a fact to be determined by the jury from the evidence.' This rule has been consistently followed by this court.

It is true that we have held that premeditation and deliberation will not be inferred or presumed from the mere fact alone that the killing was done with a deadly weapon. Weldon v. State, 168 Ark. 534, 270 S.W. 968. But, we have also held that the premeditation and deliberation required to be shown to warrant conviction of first degree murder may be inferred as a matter of fact from the circumstances of the case, such as the character of the weapons used, the nature of the wounds inflicted, and the accused's acts, conduct, and language. Bramlett v. State, ...