Sprouse v. State

• Decision Date: 10 October 1931
• Docket Number: A-8143.
• Citation: 3 P.2d 918,52 Okla.Crim. 184
• Parties: SPROUSE v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

3 P.2d 918

52 Okla.Crim. 184

SPROUSE v. STATE.

No. A-8143.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

October 10, 1931

Syllabus by the Court.

Record examined, and held, the evidence sufficiently sustains the judgment.

The question of flight is one of fact and not of law, and the court in its instructions should not assume that defendant fled, but, if an instruction upon the question of flight is given, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact.

Appeal from District Court, Pontotoc County; Orel Busby, Judge.

Ed Sprouse was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Date Crawford and Vol Crawford, both of Ada, for plaintiff in error.

J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen (George H. Copeland, of Oklahoma City, of counsel), for the State.

EDWARDS J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Pontotoc county of manslaughter in the second degree, and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the state penitentiary.

At the time charged, defendant, in the nighttime, drove an automobile on the highway just beyond the city limits of Ada at an excessive speed, and struck a wagon and team which had stopped at the side of the highway, where two negroes were putting a tire on the wheel. Defendant struck the wagon and team with such force that the tongue was broken out of the wagon, the left front wheel was smashed, and one of the mules was cut open with a fender and so injured it had to be killed, and each of the negroes had both legs broken and almost severed from the body, so that it was necessary to amputate both of the legs of the injured negroes. In addition, one had a fractured skull. The negroes were taken to the hospital, and one of them, Oregon Mitchell, became insane from the effects of the injury and died. The charge is based on section 1745, Comp. St. 1921, which defines manslaughter in the second degree as the killing of one human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, where the killing does not fall under any other definition of homicide.

It is first argued that the evidence does not sustain the judgment. Under this assignment, the contention is made that at the time of the collision the weather was extremely dry and the roads dusty, that defendant was not able to see the wagon and team in time to avoid a collision, and that he is not guilty of culpable negligence. Without reciting the evidence, we are thoroughly convinced the collision which resulted in the death of Mitchell was the result of culpable negligence on the part of defendant in driving upon the highway under the...