Reynolds v. State
Decision Date | 31 March 1947 |
Docket Number | 4441 |
Citation | 200 S.W.2d 806,211 Ark. 383 |
Parties | Reynolds v. State |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; T. G. Parham, Judge.
Affirmed.
H K. Toney and E. W. Brockman, for appellant.
Guy E. Williams,Attorney General, and Arnold Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appellant, Tommy Reynolds, by information, was charged with the crime of murder in the first degree, for the unlawful killing of "Othel Lee Ashley by striking and beating the said Othel Lee Ashley over the head and body with his fists," on August 31, 1946.A jury found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter and assessed the maximum punishment of twelve months in the State penitentiary (§ 2994, Pope's Digest).From the judgment comes this appeal.
For reversal, appellant argues (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) error in instructions, and (3) improper argument by the prosecuting attorney.
The deceased, Othel Ashley, was killed while engaged in a fight with appellant from blows inflicted from appellant's fist, on the night of August 31, 1946.The record discloses that Roy Cossey and Jim Dempsey, both intoxicated, were evicted from a picture show in Redfield, Arkansas, by the owner, Joe Smith, who was mayor of the town and also justice of the peace.Shortly thereafter, the difficulty was renewed by Cossey with Joe Smith in front of Smith's home, a short distance from the theater.Smith called a deputy sheriff to assist him in subduing Cossey and also deputized Othel Ashley, the deceased, to assist.It appears that Ashley had his arms around Cossey's neck and upon Cossey's complaining of being choked, Cossey's wife came up and managed to separate them.At this point, Mrs. Cossey testified that Ashley said: "Gertrude, I will slap hell out of you," and that appellant stepped between her and Ashley and told him not to hit her.Mr. Cossey was finally subdued and taken to the rear of Smith's home.
Vernon Oates, a witness for the State, gave his version of what thereafter transpired, in substance, as follows:
Another State's witness, Eugene H. Tucker, testified, (quoting from appellant's brief):
S. E. South, an undertaker, testified that he examined the body of Othel Ashley and that his neck was broken.
Appellant testified that he struck Ashley in self-defense after Ashley had called him a vile name and was advancing toward him, and in appellant's own words:
Appellant denied that he said "stay down" after striking Ashley the second time.
Whether the death of Ashley resulted from the unlawful acts of appellant as charged in the information, or whether it was justified, as appellant insists, on the grounds of self-defense, was clearly a question for the jury to determine.
It is our duty here to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and the jury's verdict, and when so considered, if we find it substantial, we must affirm.Higgins v. State,204 Ark. 233, 161 S.W.2d 400.
The weight to be given the testimony and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom were questions for the jury to determine.Griffin v. State,210 Ark. 388, 196 S.W.2d 484.
Here, the jury evidently found that appellant did not kill Othel Ashley in self-defense, as claimed, and we think there was substantial testimony to support their verdict.
Appellant next objected to the following instructions given by the court: ...
To continue reading
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Hill v. State
...408 S.W.2d 894, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 821, 88 S.Ct. 43, 19 L.Ed.2d 73; Reynolds v. State, 220 Ark. 188, 246 S.W.2d 724; Reynolds v. State, 211 Ark. 383, 200 S.W.2d 806. We are unable to say that there was any abuse of the court's discretion here. We have held that there was no abuse of dis......
-
Gilcrease v. State Of Ark.
...given to the testimony and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom were questions for the jury to determine. Reynolds v. State, 211 Ark. 383, 200 S.W.2d 806 (1947). We therefore cannot say that the circuit court erred in submitting the issue of Mariah Powell's status as an accomplic......
-
Grays v. State
...S.W.2d 988. The reasonableness of inferences to be drawn is one of the questions solely within the province of the jury. Reynolds v. State, 211 Ark. 383, 200 S.W.2d 806. In Cassady v. State, 247 Ark. 690, 447 S.W.2d 144, in speaking of proof of intent as a necessary element of a crime, we h......
-
Core v. State
...was for the trial judge as fact-finder and not for this court. See Upton v. State, 257 Ark. 424, 516 S.W.2d 904; Reynolds v. State, 211 Ark. 383, 200 S.W.2d 806; Shoop v. State, 209 Ark. 498, 190 S.W.2d 988; Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Lea, 208 Ark. 260, 186 S.W.2d 429; Cox v. State Farm ......