Maples v. State, 4824
| Decision Date | 09 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 4824,4824 |
| Citation | 225 Ark. 785,286 S.W.2d 15 |
| Parties | Marvin MAPLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Frederick A. Newth, Jr., Little Rock, for appellant.
Tom Gentry, Atty. Gen., Thorp Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Marvin Maples, was charged with second degree murder in the killing of Hugh Craighead. Upon a trial before the court sitting as a jury, under Ark.Stats. § 43-2108, appellant was found guilty of manslaughter and his punishment fixed at 3 years in the penitentiary.
The killing occurred at the home of appellant at 1005 Allis Street in Little Rock, Arkansas, about 7 p. m. on July 31, 1954. According to three of appellant's close neighbors, who testified for the State, the deceased drove in front of appellant's home, walked upon the porch and knocked on the front door. Appellant came out on the porch for a short period and then went back in the house. A somewhat lengthy and noisy argument took place. Deceased started to leave and then walked back and was opening the outside front screen door when he was shot in the right side of the head with a shotgun at close range and fell backwards on the porch with his feet near the threshold and the open screen door resting against his left leg. Deceased was unarmed and the State's eyewitnesses observed no overt act on his part to do bodily harm to appellant or other inmates of the residence.
Several photographs made immediately after the shooting were introduced by the State without objection. They show blood, brain tissue and other particles of flesh from deceased's skull and scalp on both the floor and ceiling of the porch and in the front yard. The major portion of deceased's brain was lying in the front yard about 15 feet from the body. According to one of the photographs and the testimony of the deputy coroner and police officers, no blood or human tissue appeared on the inside of the house nor was there any other evidence of a struggle there.
Appellant and his wife testified that deceased cursed and threatened to kill both of them when appellant went out on the porch; and that appellant jerked away from deceased, reentered the house and fastened the screen door. When appellant started to a back room to get his gun, deceased started choking and beating Mrs. Maples and had her head between his legs choking her when appellant returned with the loaded shotgun and shot deceased while the latter was standing about 2 or 3 feet inside the house still choking Mrs. Maples. Although they testified that deceased was a stranger to them, appellant identified deceased as the stepfather of Betty Jean Moore, a girl who lived with appellant seven or eight years. Appellant further stated that deceased told him he had come, 'to get revenge for Betty Jean Moore'. Neither the State nor appellant sought to further develop the nature of the relationship of the parties or the cause of the apparent bad feeling existing between them. While Mrs. Maples testified that deceased inflicted scratches and bruises on her face, she admitted that a photograph taken immediately after the killing failed to reveal such injuries.
The sole contention for reversal is that the judgment is not supported by any substantial evidence. It is argued that the undisputed evidence shows, as a matter of law, that the killing was justified on the ground of self-defense and more particularly in the necessary defense of appellant's home under Ark.Stats. § 41-2234. This statute provides: 'A manifest attempt and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another, for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein, shall be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brockwell v. State
...State, 231 Md. 354, 190 A.2d 538 (1963). In either case, the danger to the person defended may be either real or apparent. Maples v. State, 225 Ark. 785, 286 S.W.2d 15; Hall v. State, supra; Brown v. State, supra; Carpenter v. State, supra. Even though the danger may be only apparent to the......
- Baker v. Hedrick, 5-785
-
Core v. State
...testimony of any witness. Hamilton v. State, 262 Ark. 366, 556 S.W.2d 884; Clark v. State, 246 Ark. 1151, 442 S.W.2d 225; Maples v. State, 225 Ark. 785, 286 S.W.2d 15. See also, Smith v. State, 216 Ark. 1, 223 S.W.2d 1011, cert. den. 339 U.S. 916, 70 S.Ct. 562, 94 L.Ed. 1341 (1950). This is......
-
Maples v. State
...Circuit Court, he was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. The judgment was affirmed by this court January 9, 1956. Maples v. State, Ark., 286 S.W.2d 15. Subsequently, on February 7, 1956, during the September 1955 term of Circuit Court, Maples filed what is designated as a motion ......