Sparks v. State
| Citation | 19 Ariz. 455,171 P. 1182 |
| Decision Date | 18 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 435 |
| Parties | WILLIAM SPARKS, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Gila. Frank O. Smith, Judge. Affirmed.
Mr Benton Dick, Mr. Thomas E. Flannigan and Mr. Clifford C Faires, for Appellant.
Mr Wiley E. Jones, Attorney General, Mr. W. P. Geary, Mr. George Harben and Mr. L. B. Whitney, Assistant Attorneys General Mr. Norman J. Johnson, County Attorney, Mr. Kirby D. Little, Assistant County Attorney, and Mr. F. C. Jacobs, for the State.
Appellant was charged with the crime of murder, and convicted of murder in the second degree.
It is urged that the trial court committed error in allowing the state to prove by several witnesses certain threats that appellant had made against the deceased some considerable time previous to the commission of the homicide. Where malice is an ingredient of the offense charged, it is always proper to introduce evidence of threats and previous troubles as tending to show malice. Leonard v. State, 17 Ariz. 283, 151 P. 947. Courts will not exclude threats because of their remoteness. The length of time which may elapse between the threat and the homicide may be considered by the jury in connection with all the facts and circumstances of the case to determine its weight as evidence, but the admissibility of such testimony is not to be measured by mere remoteness in point of time. Wharton's Criminal Evidence (10th Ed.) Vol. 2, Sec. 882; Cyc., Vol. 21, p. 892; State v. Quinn, 56 Wash. 295, 105 P. 818.
Mr Thompson, the deceased, who was the victim of this homicide, was asked if he had been in quarrel or fight with appellant Sparks that day, to which he replied, "No; not that day." Thompson was then asked this question, "Did he [Sparks] just come up and shoot you?" Thompson replied, "Yes." Dying declarations are always admissible to show who killed the deceased, and the res gestae of the killing, and such statements make one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. It is objected that the court erred in admitting these questions and answers as a dying declaration. The admission of this testimony, under the circumstances, is free from error. When a surgeon first examined the deceased upon the ground at the scene of the killing, he was in a dangerously wounded condition, with five bullet holes through his body. The deceased was told that he would probably not live until he reached the hospital. At the hospital he was attended by two surgeons, and was again informed of his grave condition and the slight chance for his recovery. The deceased had been given some morphine to ease his pain, and the surgeons began to administer ether preparatory to an operation; but they found the physical condition of the patient such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jeffers, 4253
...is in issue, evidence of previous quarrels or difficulties between the accused and the victim is admissible. Sparks v. State, 19 Ariz. 455, 171 P. 1182 (1918); Leonard v. State, 17 Ariz. 293, 151 P. 947 (1915). In Leonard we upheld the admission of evidence of trouble between the defendant ......
-
State v. Mincey
...of such evidence but rather is a factor to be considered by the jury in determining the weight of the evidence. Sparks v. State, 19 Ariz. 455, 171 P. 1182 (1918); State v. Moore, 111 Ariz. 355, 529 P.2d 1172 (1974). It is impossible to set definitive guidelines as to the time limits for evi......
-
Connor v. State
...to a leading question or even urgent solicitation. See also Morgan v. State, 1932, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 424, 49 S.W.2d 788; Sparks v. State, 1918, 19 Ariz. 455, 171 P. 1182. The text writers also agree that a leading question will not vitiate a dying declaration. Jones, op. cit., § 306; Wharton, o......
-
Douglass v. State, Criminal 802
...... one of the defendant's witnesses to [44 Ariz. 90] testify. in regard to certain uncommunicated threats alleged to have. been made by Hayden against defendant. Where the issue is. self-defense, communicated threats are always admissible in. evidence. Sparks v. State, 19 Ariz. 455,. 171 P. 1182; Stokes v. Territory, 14 Ariz. 242, 127 P. 742. And if there is a question as to which of. two parties was the aggressor in an affray which resulted in. a killing, uncommunicated threats are also generally held to. be admissible. Wiggins v. Utah, ......