Osborne v. State, 299.

• Decision Date: 28 April 1930
• Docket Number: No. 299.,299.
• Citation: 27 S.W.2d 783,181 Ark. 661
• Parties: OSBORNE v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 783

27 S.W.2d 783

181 Ark. 661

OSBORNE v. STATE.

No. 299.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 28, 1930.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Independence County; S. M. Bone, Judge.

Norma Osborne was convicted of murder, and she appeals.

Affirmed.

Coleman & Reeder, of Batesville, for appellant.

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

SMITH, J.

Appellant seeks by this appeal to reverse the judgment of the court below sentencing her to a term of nine years in the penitentiary upon the charge of murdering Maurice Osborne, her husband. The errors assigned are that the testimony is insufficient to support the verdict, and that error was committed in giving and in refusing to give certain instructions.

As to the sufficiency of the testimony but little need be said. That the deceased was murdered — assassinated — is certain, and that his wife was present and participating in the atrocious crime appears equally so. She admitted that an illicit relation existed between herself and one J. P. Barber, and that her husband carried a $2,000 insurance policy on his life, with double liability in case of accidental death, of which she was the beneficiary.

Deceased and his brother Charles worked for their father in a store, and on the night of July 1, 1929, they closed the store and drove home in a car belonging to deceased. Charles jumped off the running board of the car at his own home which was about 260 yards from that of his brother, who continued on to his home. Charles had been at home only a few minutes when he heard three shots fired, the second and third in rapid succession following a short interval after the first. Charles left at once for the scene of the shooting, and overtook his mother, who was also on the way. They went into the house, and found Maurice lying on the kitchen floor dead. He had been shot in the face and twice in the back, and his murderer had beaten him over the head with a gun, the stock of which had been broken. There were powder burns in the back, which indicated that those shots had been fired at close range. Appellant was was lying on the floor of a front room, and when deceased's mother asked, "My God, Norma, did you do this?" appellant answered, "No, he was cleaning his gun." Appellant made conflicting statements as to the manner in which her husband met his death, all of which were obviously false, and at the coroner's inquest admitted that Barber might have been at her home when the killing occurred, and that he might have shot her husband. Barber, who was seen at the home at about sundown, fled the community, and had not been arrested at the time of the trial from which this appeal comes. The testimony was also to the effect that the furniture in the house had been rearranged to afford the assassin an unobstructed shot at deceased as he came into his home, and it was only poor marksmanship which made more than one shot necessary. Had the first shot been fatal, as was, no doubt, intended, the story that deceased had shot himself while cleaning his gun would have been more plausible. This was, no doubt, the story appellant had planned to tell to explain the death of her husband, but the deceased's brother and mother arrived on the scene before time was afforded to adjust the story to the unexpected circumstances. Appellant did not testify in her own behalf at the trial from which this appeal comes, and the implication is that she fainted when her husband was shot and was still unconscious when the deceased's brother and mother arrived; but, even so, this does not explain the conflicting and untrue statements made by appella...