McDaniels v. State

• Decision Date: 02 October 1933
• Docket Number: Cr. 3851.
• Citation: 63 S.W.2d 335
• Parties: McDANIELS v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

63 S.W.2d 335

McDANIELS v. STATE.

Cr. 3851.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 2, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lonoke County; W. J. Waggoner, Judge.

Len McDaniels was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

S. A. Jones and F. W. A. Eirmann, both of Little Rock, Jno. R. Thompson, of Cabot, and W. P. Beard, of Lonoke, for appellant.

Hal L. Norwood, Atty. Gen., and Pat Mehaffy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

MEHAFFY, Justice.

The appellant was indicted, tried, and found guilty of murder in the first degree. He was charged with the murder of F. L. Teague, in Lonoke county, Ark.

The evidence shows that before the killing a deputy sheriff, A. J. Morris, and F. L. Teague had the appellant, Len McDaniels, in custody. Appellant was handcuffed and sitting in the back seat of an open car, and Teague and Morris were in the front seat. They pulled up on the dredge ditch and stopped the car, and Teague got out. The back curtains on the car were up, the motor was still running, and just as witness, A. J. Morris, reached to turn off the gas, McDaniels shot him three times in the back of the neck. Teague started up to the back door of the car where McDaniels was, and appellant shot him. Witness lost consciousness in about one minute or so. Teague was standing right at the car when it happened. Witness does not know how many times appellant shot Teague. The shooting took place on the pike between England and Stuttgart in Lonoke county, about February 9, 1923.

Witness had no pistol in the back seat of the car, and does not know how it got there. Teague had not done anything to the negro; nothing was done to cause him to shoot witness or Teague; they did not know he had a gun back there. Witness was a deputy sheriff. There was no one with the appellant in the back seat of the car. Witness did not see the negro shoot, but there was no one else around there. Witness did not see appellant shoot Teague, but he shot him right over witness' shoulder. Witness heard the shots and saw Teague fall. There was no one in the car but witness and the appellant. Teague had gotten out.

Witness has talked to the appellant since he has been in jail, and appellant said that he shot witness and also that he shot Teague. Appellant said that he killed Teague.

J. W. Dobbins, an undertaker who lives at England, testified that he took charge of the body of Teague, who had been killed on the dredge ditch on the England-Stuttgart pike; examined the wounds, and Teague had a bullet hole through his left eye, one below the heart, and another in the leg just above the kneecap. He was shot three times.

Morris was recalled, and testified that after the shooting McDaniels fled, and had been gone until the other day when he was captured. He was caught at Carlisle.

After the verdict, there was a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and the case is here on appeal.

Appellant contends that the state has not proved the corpus delicti. It is earnestly contended that there is no evidence showing that Teague is dead. Appellant cites and relies on Edmonds v. State, 34 Ark. 720.

In that case the court expressly stated that the fact of death might be inferred from such strong and unequivocal circumstances of presumption as render it morally certain, and leave no ground for reasonable doubt.

There can be no doubt from the evidence in this case that Teague was killed. The undisputed evidence shows that he was shot through the left eye, below the heart, and in the leg, and that the undertaker shortly thereafter took charge of the body. We think it is therefore morally certain, and that the evidence leaves no grounds for reasonable doubt, not only that Teague is dead, but that he was killed by appellant.

In addition to this, the appellant himself admitted that he killed Teague, and there was no contention at the trial either that Teague was not dead or that the appellant did not kill him.

It is stated in Underhill's Criminal Evidence: "A broader, more accurate and more inclusive statement of the general rule would be that the corpus delicti of homicide must be proved either by showing that the party alleged to have been killed is actually dead by proof of the finding and identifying his corpse, or by showing that the murder was accomplished or accompanied by the employment of violence in such manner as to sufficiently account for the disappearance of the body and render direct evidence of its whereabouts or appearance impossible to be obtained." Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 37.

In the instant case, however, we have the direct and positive evidence of the undertaker that Teague was shot in such manner as to produce death, and that he actually took charge of the body after death. In addition to this, we have the testimony of Morris and the admission of appellant that appellant shot and killed Teague.

Another case relied on by appellant is Hubbard v. State, 77 Ark. 126, 91 S. W. 11.

The court there said that the confession alone was not sufficient to sustain a conviction, but the court also said in that case: "It is not essential that the corpus delicti be established by proof entirely independent of the confession, and the...