McGuire v. State, Cr. 3888.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1934 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3888. |
| Citation | 74 S.W.2d 235 |
| Parties | McGUIRE v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County, First Division; Abner McGehee, Judge.
Bill McGuire was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Sam Robinson, of Little Rock, for appellant.
Hal L. Norwood, Atty. Gen., and Pat Mehaffy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was tried in the Pulaski county circuit court on a charge of murder in the first degree for the killing of W. G. Carter. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty as charged, whereupon the court sentenced him to be electrocuted.
On appeal it is not contended that the evidence adduced was insufficient to justify the verdict. The evidence introduced on the part of the appellee is to the following effect: W. G. Carter and G. G. Barham were operating a filling station in Little Rock. At about 7 o'clock on the evening of January 8, 1934, appellant, Bill McGuire, came into the filling station and stated that he had intended holding up the place, but as they had been so nice to him he had changed his mind. He then walked from the station and stopped a short distance away. Barham saw him return and approach a window through which he discharged a firearm, the shot from which struck Carter in the back, and he died early the next morning as a result of the wound.
One Arthur Lindsey testified that McGuire visited him on January 4th; that he stayed all night, and, after he had left the next day, witness discovered his Winchester rifle was missing. No one else except McGuire was at witness' house at the time the gun disappeared. This weapon was found some time after the killing in a small water course near the scene of the killing and was subsequently identified by witness as the one taken from his home during McGuire's visit to him. On examining the premises where the killing occurred, a discharged rifle cartridge was found which fitted this rifle.
Two other witnesses stated that they had seen McGuire on the night of January 8 in the vicinity of the crime, and that he was carrying a Winchester rifle. McGuire was arrested at his home in Little Rock at about 10:30 o'clock on the night of the homicide and, when arrested, was in bed. He had on his underwear, which the officers discovered was wet, and the clothes which he had taken off were also wet. This evidence was accepted by the jury as true and is ample to sustain the verdict.
McGuire not having employed counsel, the court appointed a lawyer to conduct his defense. One of the grounds upon which the request for reversal is based is that the court was negligent in the appointment of the attorney for the reason that he was a young and inexperienced practitioner and known to be such by the court, that he did not have sufficient ability and experience to fairly represent the defendant, and that therefore defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial such as the law contemplates.
Our attention is called to the case of People v. Blevins, 251 Ill. 381, 96 N. E. 214, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 451, where a judgment of the trial court, based on a verdict of guilty of murder was reversed because the trial judge, under a statute similar to our own, appointed two lawyers to represent the defendant who had not been engaged in the practice longer than two years and were inexperienced in the trial of criminal cases. At the time of their appointment these lawyers protested that they were inexperienced and were overmatched by the array of able and experienced counsel for the state. It appears that there were four eminent lawyers representing the prosecution. From the opinion of the court in that case it would seem that the rules of evidence and procedure of that state were grossly violated, and from the record before the Supreme Court it concluded that the lawyers appointed by the court were totally unsuited to properly present the case of the defendant or to protect his rights during the progress of the trial. For that reason and because of the court's knowledge of the inexperience...
To continue reading
Request your trial