Parsley v. State
Decision Date | 24 December 1921 |
Docket Number | 71 |
Citation | 235 S.W. 797,151 Ark. 246 |
Parties | PARSLEY v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lonoke Circuit Court; George W. Clark, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Williams & Holloway, Trimble & Trimble and Guy E Williams, for appellant.
Instruction No. 5, given by the court, is in substance the same instruction given on a former trial, which was the error for which the case was remanded for new trial. Parsley v. State, 148 Ark. 518. The giving of this instruction calls for the reversal of the case.
J S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.
We concede error in the giving of instruction No. 5.
Allie Parsley prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction against himself for the crime of assault with intent to kill.
This is the second appeal in the case, and the evidence is not materially different from that in the former appeal. Reference is made to the opinion for a particular statement of facts. Parsley v. State, 148 Ark. 518 230 S.W. 587.
On the former appeal it was held that our Statute providing that in homicide cases, if the killing is established, the burden of proving mitigating circumstances justifying or excusing the homicide shall devolve on the accused, does not apply to assault with intent to kill, and the burden is on the State to prove every allegation of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgment was reversed because the trial court had given an instruction embodying this statute in form and substance, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.
Upon the retrial of the case the court again gave substantially the same instruction, and for the reasons given in our former opinion, the judgment must be again reversed, and the cause remanded for the error in giving this instruction. The Attorney General confesses error in this respect.
It is also insisted by counsel for the defendant that the court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to prove that the prosecuting witness on the day preceding the killing had made violent threats and demonstrations against the defendant, and that the judgment should be reversed because of the failure of the court to allow this proof to go to the jury.
On the part of the State it is admitted that the defendant asked questions looking to the introduction of testimony of threats made against the defendant by the prosecuting witness on the day preceding the shooting, but it is insisted that the exclusion of the testimony should not be considered on appeal because the defendant did not offer to show what the answer to the question would be. See Webb v. State, 150 Ark. 75, 233 S.W. 806.
Whatever may be the state of the record on this point, we deem it necessary to decide the question in view of another trial. The defendant, Parsley, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kagebein v. State
...connection between the occasion when the threats were made and the difficulty under investigation. Crews v. State, supra; Parsley v. State, 151 Ark. 246, 235 S.W. 797; Brown v. State, 55 Ark. 593, 18 S.W. 1051. See 5 Ark.L.Rev. 207. On the other hand, it is not competent in such cases to sh......
-
Brockwell v. State
...968 (8 Cir., 1915). Cf. Armstrong v. State, 251 Ark. 865, 475 S.W.2d 541; Decker v. State, 234 Ark. 518, 353 S.W.2d 168; Parsley v. State, 151 Ark. 246, 235 S.W. 797; Jackson v. State, 103 Ark. 21, 145 S.W. 559; Turner v. State, 128 Ark. 565, 195 S.W. Evidence of threats made by the victim ......
-
Durham v. State
... ... destroy such property, where such evidence tends to show the ... state of feeling of the parties, or either of them. Such ... evidence may in certain cases be quite remote. The Supreme ... Court of Arkansas, dealing with this subject in Parsley ... v. State (Ark.) 151 Ark. 246, 235 S.W. 797, said: ... "'Of ... course where the threats are too remote, both in circumstance ... and time, to afford any reasonable presumption or inference ... of connection between the occasion when the threats were made ... and the difficulty ... ...
- Seaton v. State