Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 26 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 11 |
| Citation | 255 S.W. 876,161 Ark. 242 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court; James H. McCollum, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Tillman B. Parks, for appellant.
J S. Utley, Attorney General, John L. Carter Wm. T. Hammock and Darden Moose, Assistants, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree, alleged to have been committed by shooting Ed Twitty, and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and given a sentence of five years in the penitentiary, and, to reverse that sentence, has appealed.
This killing occurred in the latter part of July, 1923. It appears that, in the early part of 1923, Twitty had shot and killed appellant's father, and there was testimony that thereafter appellant became moody and constantly brooded over this tragedy, and was much affected by it. There was testimony that thereafter appellant neither slept soundly nor ate regularly, and the defense interposed was that appellant had become of unsound mind.
After hearing the instructions of the court and the argument of counsel, the jury retired to consider its verdict, and thereafter returned into open court and, through the foreman, asked the following question: "The foreman: We want an instruction as to the sentence to the reformatory school-- whether we have any jurisdiction as jurors." To this question the court gave the following answer: Appellant, at the time, objected to the question of the jury, and excepted to the answer of the court.
Thereupon, according to the recitals of the record, "the jury again retired to consider their verdict, and thereafter returned into open court" a verdict finding appellant guilty of manslaughter and assessing his punishment at five years in the penitentiary.
Upon reading the verdict, counsel for appellant requested a poll of the jury, and this was had. Counsel then asked to be allowed to inquire of each juror whether he would have returned a verdict of guilty if the court had not informed the jury that, if a conviction was returned, the defendant would be sentenced to the industrial school by the court. But the court refused to permit the jurors to be thus interrogated. It will be observed, from the question and answer set out above, that the court did not advise the jury that appellant would be sentenced to the industrial school, but only that the court had the power to do so.
The court properly refused to permit the question to be asked the jurors, as the statute prohibits jurors from thus impeaching their verdict. Section 3220, C. & M. Digest; Capps v. State, 109 Ark. 193, 159 S.W. 193; Lemons v. State, 155 Ark. 59, 244 S.W. 1; Arnold v. State, 150 Ark. 27, 233 S.W. 818; Lamb v. State, 135 Ark. 275, 205 S.W. 653.
No error was committed in answering the question asked by the jury. As we have pointed out, the court did not tell the jury that the defendant would be sent to the industrial school, if convicted, but that it was within the power of the court to sentence him to the industrial school if he were convicted; and this is the law.
The case is unlike the cases of Pittman v. State, 84 Ark. 292, 105 S.W. 874, and Bird v. State, 154 Ark. 297, 242 S.W. 71. The convictions in those cases were reversed because the court, in each case, erroneously declared the law to be that appellant's sentence, if convicted, would be served, in any event, in the reform school, and not in the penitentiary.
The record in the present case is like that in the case of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carroll
...was made in response to an inquiry, evidently deeming that of some importance. Freeman v. State, 156 Ark. 592, 247 S.W. 51; Jones v. State, 161 Ark. 242, 255 S.W. 876. the jury may not know the details of reprieves, pardons and paroles, they, along with all ordinarily informed men, have a g......
-
Bell v. State, 4763
...sentence and parole, are: Pittman v. State, 84 Ark. 292, 105 S.W. 874; Bird v. State, 154 Ark. 297, 242 S.W. 71; and Jones v. State, 161 Ark. 242, 255 S.W. 876.5 See Hyde v. State, 212 Ark. 612, 206 S.W.2d 739.6 See 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1888, p. 849 for general discussion as to when r......
-
Durham v. State
... ... verdict of guilty and its power to send the defendant to the ... reform school instead of the penitentiary. The court ... correctly instructed the jury as to the law in this respect, ... in accordance with Pittman v. State, 84 ... Ark. 292, 105 S.W. 874, and Jones v. State, ... 161 Ark. 242, 255 S.W. 876 ... It is ... claimed, however, that the action of the court was ... prejudicial because, under § 3192 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, it was the duty of the court to have the ... jury brought into court and to have instructed it in the ... ...
-
Pendleton v. State
... ... the statute (§ 4028, Pope's Digest) says the jury ... may ask the court about a point of law; and the statute ... (§ 4053, Pope's Digest, as amended [211 Ark. 1059] ... by Act 262 of 1945) says the court may suspend a sentence ... Furthermore, we held in Jones v. State, 161 ... Ark. 242, 255 S.W. 876, that it was proper for the court to ... answer questions of the jury concerning the nature and place ... of confinement. That holding applies here ... Second, ... appellant asked the court to tell the jury whether the court ... ...