Surridge v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 5130,5130 |
| Parties | James SURRIDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John F. Gibson, Dermott, for appellant.
Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., by Clyde Calliotte, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
James Surridge appeals from a verdict and judgment finding him guilty of murder in the first degree and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The decedent, Norman Dollar, owned a small motel which he occupied as his residence. On the morning of July 9, 1964, Dollar did not leave his room at his usual time. By early afternoon his employees became concerned about him and reported the matter to the McGehee chief of police. Officers broke into Dollar's room and found his dead body lying upon a bed. He had been shot in the back of the head with a shotgun. The coroner estimated that the crime had been committed in the early morning hours.
In attempting to establish Surridge's guilt the State offered proof that Surridge had been negotiating with Dollar for the purchase of the motel and had spent the night of July 7 there. It was shown that on the evening of July 8 Surridge borrowed a shotgun for the asserted purpose of killing a deer, although the deer-hunting season was not open. The man who lent Surridge the gun testified that after the murder was discovered Surridge said to him, 'I know they are going to question me * * * don't say nothing about that gun.' Surridge's fingerprints were proved to have been upon an empty beer bottle that was on a table in Dollar's room when his body was discovered. Surridge refrained from testifying, as of course he was privileged to do.
Much of the appellant's brief is devoted to the contention that the State's proof was not sufficient to present a prima facie case for submission to the jury. We are of the opinion that the testimony is sufficient to support the verdict. We need not, however, discuss this point in detail, for the insufficiency of the evidence was not carried forward as an assignment in the motion for a new trial and is therefore not available to he appellant as a ground for reversal. Decker v. State, 234 Ark. 518, 353 S.W.2d 168, 98 A.L.R.2d 1 (1962); Crouch v. Gilbert, 210 Ark. 885, 198 S.W.2d 72 (1946). The appellant is not entitled to rely upon the statutory rule that an objection alone is sufficient in a capital case, for, although charged with a capital offense, he was sentenced to life imprisonment only....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Turcio
...allowed. See Sullivan v. Scafati, 428 F.2d 1023 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1001, 91 S.Ct. 478, 27 L.Ed.2d 452; Surridge v. State, 239 Ark. 581, 393 S.W.2d 246; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 354 Mass. 598, 239 N.E.2d 5, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1056, 89 S.Ct. 697, 21 L.Ed.2d 698; State v. ......
-
State v. Ryerson
...v. Scafati, 428 F.2d 1023 (1st Cir. [1970], cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1001, 91 S.Ct. 478, 27 L.Ed.2d 452 [1971]; Surridge v. State, 239 Ark. 581, 393 S.W.2d 246 [1965]; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 354 Mass. 598, 239 N.E.2d 5 [1968], cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1056, 89 S.Ct. 697, 21 L.Ed.2d 698 [1969......
-
State v. Bennett
...allowed. See Sullivan v. Scafati, 428 F.2d 1023 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1001, 91 S.Ct. 478, 27 L.Ed.2d 452; Surridge v. State, 239 Ark. 581, 393 S.W.2d 246; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 354 Mass. 598, 239 N.E.2d 5, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1056, 89 S.Ct. 697, 21 L.Ed.2d 698; State v. ......
-
State v. Cari
...allowed. See Sullivan v. Scafati, 428 F.2d 1023 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1001, 91 S.Ct. 478, 27 L.Ed.2d 452; Surridge v. State, 239 Ark. 581, 393 S.W.2d 246; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 354 Mass. 598, 239 N.E.2d 5, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1056, 89 S.Ct. 697, 21 L.Ed.2d 698; State v. ......