Johnson v. State, 5701

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROWN
• Citation: Johnson v. State, 479 S.W.2d 872, 252 Ark. 510 (Ark. 1972)
• Decision Date: 08 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. 5701,5701
• Parties: George JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

Page 872

479 S.W.2d 872

252 Ark. 510

George JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. 5701.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 8, 1972.

H. Allan Dishongh, Little Rock, for appellant.

Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen. by Henry Ginger, Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

In a consolidated trial appellant was convicted of burglary and assault with intent to kill. He appeals on the grounds that the verdicts were contrary to the law and the evidence.

First, we shall succinctly state the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. At about 10:30 o'clock on the night of May 22, 1970, William A. Cisco closed the grocery store where he worked and, together with his wife and daughter, proceeded to drive to their home on East Roosevelt Road in Little Rock. The daughter entered the house first to unlock the doors. As Mr. Cisco entered the house he heard an alarming noise. He ran through the house and when he got to the back room, a den, he was confronted by an armed Negro male who was holding Cisco's daughter in front of him. The Negro shouted 'get back you white s.o.b. or I'll kill you.' When the daughter cried out for help the father entered the den and the appellant and Cisco began exchanging shots. Both appellant and Mr. Cisco were hit by bullets. When appellant had apparently emptied his gun he ran out the back door with Cisco in pursuit. Appellant was not then apprehended. He shortly entered a local hospital under an assumed name. He had been shot twice.

The Cisco home was found to be in disarray. Entrance was gained by removing a back screen and breaking a window. (Appellant sustained a cut between his thumb and index finger.) A 'piggie bank' had been broken and some coins were found on the floor. At the hospital it was found that appellant was in possession of a large quantity of coins.

Both Mr. Cisco and his wife made positive identification of appellant. They said they did not see any other stranger in the house.

First, appellant contends that the State failed to prove a specific intent to kill Mr. Cisco. We disagree. The conditions under which intent may be implied from facts and circumstances are well set out in Lewis v. State, 209 Ark. 51, 189 S.W.2d 641 (1945):

While the intent to kill cannot be implied as a matter of law, it may be inferred from facts and circumstances of the assault, such as the use of a deadly weapon in a manner indicating an intention to kill, or an act of violence which ordinarily would be calculated to produce death, or great bodily harm. In determining whether or not the intent to kill should be inferred, the trier of the facts may properly consider the character of the weapon employed and the way it was used; the manner of...