Sheppard v. State
| Decision Date | 11 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 5133,5133 |
| Citation | 239 Ark. 785,394 S.W.2d 624 |
| Parties | John Henry SHEPPARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
George Howard, Jr., Pine Bluff, for appellant.
Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., by William Powell Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellant, John Henry Sheppard, aged 19, was charged with having murdered Annie Yocum Willett, aged 69, in the perpetration of rape.This appeal is from a verdict and judgment finding the accused guilty of murder in the first degree and sentencing him to death.
There is not, and hardly could be, any contention that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence.We briefly summarize the proof.Mrs. Willett and her husband lived on a farm about ten miles west of El Dorado.On the morning of July 1, 1964, Willett started for his place of work in the oil fields at about eight o'clock, leaving his wife at home alone.About an hour later the couple's grown son, Buford Willett, came by to see his mother, but she was not there.Buford became concerned about her absence, especially as he found that the kitchen stove had been pulled away from the wall and as he also remembered having thought that he had glimpsed a prowler in the barn on the preceding evening.
For several hours a search was conducted, at first by Buford alone, then by him and his father, and finally by police officers and volunteers.Frank Willett eventually discovered his wife's nearly nude body in a creek about half a mile from the Willett home.The body was marked by many scratches, bruises, and other evidences of violence.An autopsy revealed that Mrs. Willett had been raped and that her death had been caused by drowning.
There were indications that the assault occurred in a wooded area between the house and the creek.There the searchers found torn clothing that had been worn by Mrs. Willett, her broken glasses, and a pair of yellow plastic gloves positively identified by Buford Willett as belonging to the appellant Sheppard, who had worked for Buford as a tractor driver and farm hand.The officers made a cast of a footprint found in the mud by Mrs. Willett's body.In the latter part of the morning Sheppard appeared at another farm some three miles from the Willett place.It was not his regular place of employment, but he spent the day there.There is testimony that he said that he had killed someone and that it made him feel funny.Sheppard was arrested that afternoon as he was going to his parents' home.About 30 minutes after his arrest, which was also about 15 minutes after he was taken to jail, he was interviewed by Officer Taylor.Sheppard freely admitted his guilt, giving an account that dovetailed with the physical evidence already discovered.Sheppard said that he had hidden in the Willett barn overnight and had entered the house after Frank Willett left for work.Sheppard surprised Mrs. Willett in the kitchen, dazed her with a blow, and dragged her to the wooded area.At first he denied the assault, but he admitted this part of the crime when he was informed that Mrs. Willett's body showed that she had been raped.Sheppard said that he had drowned Mrs. Willett by holding her head under the water.
There were recent scratches on Sheppard's arms and blood on his clothing.When one of his boots was compared with the cast made by the officers two identifying marks afforded positive proof that the footprint had been made by the boot that Sheppard was wearing when he was arrested.Without narrating the proof in further detail we think it sufficient to say that the evidence shows beyond any doubt that Sheppard committed the brutal crime for which he was tried.
I.The court was correct in overruling a motion for change of venue.The two lawyers appointed to defend Sheppard testified that in discussing the case with people in the county they encountered a widespread belief in the accused's guilt, owing to newspaper, radio, and television reports.This fact, however, does not prove that Sheppard could not obtain a fair trial in the county.To the contrary, one of the attorneys stated that he had not heard anyone say that a fair trial could not be had, and the other testified that he had heard only a few people make that statement.There was other affirmative proof that the accused could receive a fair trial in the county.Our study of the record convinces us that Sheppard was in fact tried fairly.We certainly cannot say that the circuit judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a change of venue.Leggett v. State, 227 Ark. 393, 299 S.W.2d 59(1957).The case is unlike Hildreth v. State, 214 Ark. 710, 217 S.W.2d 622(1949), cited by the appellant, for here it is not shown, as it was in that case, either that many residents of the county thought that the accused could not obtain a fair trial or that the fear of public enmity prevented those citizens from making affidavits to support the request for a change of venue.
II.Before the trial the accused, a Negro, moved to quash the jury panel on the ground that there had been a systematic exclusion of Negroes from juries in Union county.In the first instance defense counsel offered no proof to support the motion.After the trial, however, Sheppard's present attorney adduced some evidence upon the point.Of course this testimony should have been offered in the first place, for otherwise the accused is in the position of having speculated upon the chance of a favorable verdict before making his attack upon the composition of the jury.In any event, however, we find no merit in this assignment of error.
There is almost no proof of discrimination in the selection of jurors in recent years.The case was tried at the September, 1964, term.During the preceding five years 'quite a few' Negroes regularly sat on the jury.At least twelve were among the veniremen called for the September term.This number represents a ratio not demonstrably disproportionate to the ratio of qualified Negro electors in the county, though there is no indication that such a result was deliberately sought by the jury commissioners.Quite the opposite, the testimony indicates that the jurors were chosen without regard to color.
Perhaps the strongest circumstances tending to confirm the trial court's fairness and impartiality is the fact that one of the three jury commissioners appointed by the trial judge was a Negro--a man with fifteen years experience as a school teacher and principal.Such an appointment goes far toward meeting the criticism frequently made, that the commissioners are not sufficiently acquainted with the Negro electors.
The single point in counsel's argument that finds support in the proof is the fact that the electors were designated by race in the list of qualified voters.Our attention is directed to Avery v. State of Georgia, 345 U.S 559, 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed. 1244(1953), but the court did not hold that such a practice is in itself sufficient to establish discrimination in the selection of the jury....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rice
...219 (D.Me.1965); State v. Menard, 331 S.W.2d 521 (Mo.1960); State v. Phillips, 262 Wis. 303, 55 N.W.2d 384 (1952); Sheppard v. State, 239 Ark. 785, 394 S.W.2d 624 (1965); People v. Shaw, 237 Cal.App.2d 606, 47 Cal.Rptr. 96 (1965); State v. Post, 255 Iowa 573, 123 N.W.2d 11 (1963). Because o......
-
Giles v. State
...People v. Tipton, 48 Cal.2d 389, 309 P.2d 813 (1957). See also, Summerville v. State, 253 Ark. 16, 484 S.W.2d 85; Sheppard v. State, 239 Ark. 785, 394 S.W.2d 624, cert. den., 387 U.S. 923, 87 S.Ct. 2038, 18 L.Ed.2d 977; Dewein v. State, 114 Ark. 472, 170 S.W. 582; Mitchell v. State, 206 Ark......
-
Golliher v. United States
...219 (D.Me.1965); State v. Menard, 331 S.W.2d 521 (Mo.1960); State v. Phillips, 262 Wis. 303, 55 N.W. 2d 384 (1952); Sheppard v. State, 394 S.W.2d 624 (Ark.1965); People v. Shaw, Cal.App., 47 Cal.Rptr. 96 (1965); State v. Post, 255 Iowa 573, 123 N.W.2d 11 (1963). Because of the reasons state......
-
Tucker v. State
...does not prevent the giving of voluntary confession or the intelligent, knowing waiver of his Constitutional rights. In Sheppard v. State, 239 Ark. 785, 394 S.W.2d 624 cert. den., 387 U.S. 923, 87 S.Ct. 2038, 18 L.Ed.2d 977; Dewein v. State, 114 Ark. 472, 170 S.W. 582; and Mitchell v. State......