Peters v. State
| Citation | 245 Ark. 9,430 S.W.2d 856 |
| Decision Date | 26 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5352,5352 |
| Parties | Geneva PETERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Howell, Price & Worsham, Little Rock, for appellant.
Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appelllant Geneva Peters was charged with second degree murder for the fatal shooting of her husband. She was convicted of manslaughter. Mrs. Peters here contends that the evidence and the applicable law establishes excusable homicide.
Mrs. Peters was required to use all reasonable means within her power and consistent with her safety to avoid killing her husband. McDonald v. State, 104 Ark. 317, 149 S.W. 95 (1912). If in that respect she acted too hastily and without due care, the killing amounted to manslaughter. Ellis v. State, 234 Ark. 1072, 356 S.W.2d 426 (1962). The trial court, sitting as a jury, concluded that Mrs. Peters' actions did not comport with the recited rule. We therefore examine the brief evidence in light of that rule.
Geneva and Douglas Peters had been married some eight years and had two children. On the day preceding the fatal shooting that night, Geneva and Douglas had a quarrel, so she testified. Geneva recounted that she went to her mother's home nearby. The couple had a mutual friend and neighbor, Wardell Davis. When the latter learned Geneva was at her mother's house he called Geneva, presumably and according to Geneva, to reconcile Geneva's and Douglas' differences. The 'peacemaker' drove to the mother's home and picked up Geneva about 8:00 p.m. They remained together for some two hours. According to Geneva, they drove around, talked, and had a drink of whiskey. About 10:00 p.m. Wardell Davis suggested that he take Geneva back to her mother's because Davis was due to pick up his wife, who would get off work at eleven o'clock. They returned to the mother's home and parked, and it was at that point that Douglas Peters came to the Wardell Davis car.
Appellant and Wardell Davis supplied the testimony as to the shooting. The husband approached the car from the passenger side. If he had a weapon it was not visible. He could not open the door because Geneva had it locked. Since the car had only two doors, the husband went around the car to the driver's side, opened that door, and reached for Geneva. In the meantime she had removed a pistol from her purse. She fired three times, all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry v. State
...41--2236 (Repl.1964). Bruder v. State, 110 Ark. 402, 161 S.W. 1067; Deatherage v. State, 194 Ark. 513, 108 S.W.2d 904; Peters v. State, 245 Ark. 9, 430 S.W.2d 856; Duncan v. State, 49 Ark. 543, 6 S.W. The nature and location of the wounds were material in this case to several of the issues.......
-
Harshaw v. State, 00-1130
...See e.g. Hathcock v. State, 256 Ark. 707, 510 S.W.2d 276 (1974); Burton v. State, 254 Ark. 673, 495 S.W.2d 841 (1973); Peters v. State, 245 Ark. 9, 430 S.W.2d 856(1968); Ellis v. State, 234 Ark. 1072, 356 S.W.2d 426 (1962); Halton v. State, 224 Ark. 28, 271 S.W.2d 616 (1954); McGarrah v. St......
-
McCarley v. State
...believes he is about to be assaulted by the other, he is not justified in taking human life and is guilty of manslaughter. Peters v. State, 245 Ark. 9, 430 S.W.2d 856; Ellis v. State, 234 Ark. 1072, 356 S.W.2d 426. The jury was instructed on the crime of manslaughter and a verdict on that d......
-
Burton v. State
...249 Ark. 852, 462 S.W.2d 452. If, in that respect, he acted hastily and without due care, the killing was manslaughter. Peters v. State, 245 Ark. 9, 430 S.W.2d 856. Appellant's pleading self-defense placed the issue of manslaughter before the jury. Ellis v. State, 234 Ark. 1072, 356 S.W.2d ......