Lacy v. State, Criminal 738
Decision Date | 01 April 1931 |
Docket Number | Criminal 738 |
Citation | 38 Ariz. 60,297 P. 872 |
Parties | HENRY HORACE LACY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Affirmed.
Messrs Speakman & Seaman, for Appellant.
Mr. K Berry Peterson, Attorney General, Mr. Arthur T. LaPrade Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. George T. Wilson, County Attorney, for the State.
From a conviction of an assault with intent to commit murder, upon the person of one L. C. Totten, the defendant, Henry Horace Lacy, Jr., has appealed. He claims that he was not given a fair trial, in that the jury was improperly instructed as to the law. The instructions of which complaint is made state the evidence and the contentions of the prosecution and defense in reference thereto. in addition to the facts disclosed in such instructions, we give a general statement of the troubles, their origin, and the relation of the parties.
The Totten and Lacy families live in the same block in the village of Goodyear, Maricopa county. On the evening of April 25, 1930, the Tottens gave a dancing party, and, among others, invited the Lacys to attend. Hal H. Lacy and his four sons, Dub, Dick, Bud, and Henry Horace, the defendant, were among the guests. During the evening Dub Lacy and another guest, Frank Burns, were dancing together and in such a manner as to displease their host, L. C. Totten. The latter requested them to quit dancing as they were to choose lady partners. From this the trouble started. Sharp words were passed. The defendant, Dub, Burns and Totten passed out the house on to the front porch. Here Totten, used some vile language toward Dub, who thereupon struck Totten, knocking him down. The latter then went into the house, procured a double-barrel shotgun and returned to the front porch. Two of his sons, Virgil and Donald, tried to take the shotgun away from their father, and, while doing so it was discharged into the ground or sidewalk. In the meantime, immediately after Dub had struck Totten, the defendant, who had left the scene for the Lacy home, only two or three hundred feet away, re-appeared with a revolver, and the shooting began. The evidence is in dispute as to who fired the first shot, the defendant claiming that Totten did and the prosecution that defendant did. Totten shot twice, once at defendant and once at defendant's father, Hal H. Lacy. Defendant emptied his six-shooter at Totten. Result: Totten was shot in the breast by defendant and stabbed in the back with a knife by Hal H. Lacy, defendant's father, who, in turn, had his right arm shot off by Totten.
The same criticism is directed at all the instructions complained of. It is that they "are argumentative, confusing, contradictory, give undue prominence to certain facts and evidence, give undue prominence to certain aspects of the case, and single out one particular thing only as determinative of the jury's verdict." We here quote such instructions:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Willits
...to direct the jurors' attention to all matters properly within the issues for their determination. This Court said in Lacy v. State, 38 Ariz. 60, 64, 65, 297 P. 872: 'Upon that issue the court in the above instructions hypothesized the evidence, both that supporting the defense and denying ......
-
Western Truck Lines, Ltd., a Corp. v. Berry
... ... accident occurred and whose was the fault. We state the ... controlling facts before taking up the assignments of error ... 45] governing the ... matter in civil cases although we have in criminal. Section ... 5064, Revised Code of 1928. If that statute is followed, or ... Pfeiffer v. State, 35 Ariz. 321, 278 P. 63; ... Lacy v. State, 38 Ariz. 60, 64, 297 P. 872, ... 874. In the latter case we ... ...
-
Harris v. State, Criminal 822
...a comment upon the evidence as defendant suggests. It is in a form common in instructions and is not subject to criticism. Lacy v. State, 38 Ariz. 60, 297 P. 872. It contended by defendant that the evidence so conclusively and clearly shows the lack of malice on the part of the defendant th......