Scruggs v. State

• Decision Date: 12 November 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 227.)
• Citation: 198 S.W. 694
• Parties: SCRUGGS v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

198 S.W. 694

SCRUGGS v. STATE.

(No. 227.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 12, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, White County; J. M. Jackson, Judge.

E. T. Scruggs was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

E. T. Scruggs was indicted for the crime of murder in the first degree, charged to have been committed by killing E. L. Benton. Both Scruggs and Benton were married, and lived within a mile of each other in White county, Ark. Benton became intimate with the wife of Scruggs. Scruggs found out that Benton was having illicit relations with his wife, and this caused a difficulty between Scruggs and Benton, and also the separation of Scruggs and his wife. The difficulty and separation occurred in November, 1916, and about the 1st of March, the next spring, Mrs. Scruggs returned to her home. Benton continued his illicit relations with her whenever Scruggs was away from home, and Scruggs was informed of this fact. Both Benton and Scruggs went to a church in the neighborhood in White county, Ark., on July 1, 1917. Scruggs remained out of doors for some time, and finally went into the house and sat down near Benton with a pistol concealed under his hat. He got up and went out of the house for a while, and again came back during the services and sat down close to Benton. He pulled out a pistol from under his hat and shot at Benton three times. One of the shots went in the neck and one in the shoulder, ranging downward. There was also one bullet wound in his right arm. He died in the afternoon of the same day, and these gunshot wounds caused his death.

The defense of the defendant was insanity. Evidence was adduced in his behalf tending to show that he was informed of the fact that Benton had illicit relations with his wife, and that he brooded over this fact until his mind became unbalanced and he did not realize that he was doing wrong at the time he shot and killed Benton. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, and fixed his punishment at five years in the state penitentiary. The defendant has appealed.

Brundidge & Neelly, of Searcy, for appellant. John D. Arbuckle, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is first contended by counsel for the defendant that the court erred in not granting him a continuance on account of the absence from the state of Irvin Scruggs and Effie Scruggs his wife. In his motion the defendant stated that Irvin Scruggs and Effie Scruggs lived near him, and if present would testify that, as far back as the summer of 1915, they discovered that Benton had illicit relations with the wife of the defendant, that they communicated this fact to the defendant, and also on subsequent occasions discovered the same fact and communicated it to the defendant; that on the night before the separation of the defendant and his wife in November, 1916, that Benton was found at the home of the defendant at a late hour of the night; that he was confronted by the defendant, and admitted to him that he was ruining his home, and that if he would leave him alone that he would leave before sunrise the next morning; that the witnesses would further testify that after this Scruggs became morose and moody and seemed to take no further interest in life; that his condition finally became such they regarded him as insane; that these witnesses had removed to the state of Texas about the 1st of February, 1917; and that if a continuance was granted him he could procure their attendance at the next term of the court. The court did not err in refusing a continuance on account of the absence of these witnesses. In the first place, the killing occurred on the 1st day of July, 1917. The defendant, after the shooting, got in a car with his brothers and went to the town of Searcy and surrendered to the sheriff. He was indicted on the 17th of July, 1917, and his trial was commenced on the 27th day of July, 1917. All the parties lived out in the country. The absent witnesses were of the same name as the defendant, and the defendant knew where they went when they left the neighborhood. He knew what their testimony would be, and made no effort whatever to have their depositions taken. Besides this, it was proved by several other witnesses that Benton had been having illicit relations with the wife of Scruggs, and no attempt whatever was made by the state to disprove this fact. It is true there were no other witnesses present on the night in November when the defendant and Benton had their difficulty, but several witnesses came in after the difficulty and testified in regard to the actions of the parties. They testified that the separation of Scruggs and his wife occurred on account of illicit relations with Benton, and the undisputed evidence shows that the defendant knew of the intimacy of his wife with Benton, and killed Benton on this account. The only defense was that he was insane at the time he committed the act. The testimony of the absent witnesses would have been in part as to facts which were undisputed, and cumulative as to the other facts.

It is next contended that the court erred in its ruling as to the competency of two jurors. The jurors were examined separately at great length. We do not deem it necessary to set out their entire testimony. When the whole record bearing on this aspect of the case is read, it is fairly inferable that each of these jurors had formed his opinion from hearsay, and not from talking with persons who were witnesses in the case. Each of them said that he had no prejudice against the defendant, and that he could try the case entirely in accordance with the evidence adduced...