Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 24 February 1908 |
| Citation | 108 S.W. 224,85 Ark. 357 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge; affirmed.
1. The State depends for conviction upon the testimony of Alonzo Sledge, and his testimony is discredited by his own admissions, by several witnesses and by every circumstance in the case. The verdict is not supported by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
H. F Roleson, for appellant.
2. At most, there could only have been a conviction for manslaughter, hence there should have been no suggestion of a shifting of the burden. Sec. 1765, Kirby's Dig., ought not to have been read to the jury. This error is emphasized by the refusal of appellant's fourth prayer for instruction. 71 Ark. 459.
William F. Kirby, Attorney General, and Daniel Taylor, assistant, for appellee.
1. There is no question but that the evidence supports the verdict.
2. No error in reading the statute to the jury. The case cited by appellant does not apply. This case is governed by the rule laid down in Petty v. State, 76 Ark. 515.
Will Thomas was indicted for murder in the first degree and convicted of manslaughter.
In its charge to the jury the court read section 1765 of Kirby's Digest, as follows: "The killing being proved, the burden of proving circumstances of mitigation that justify or excuse the homicide shall devolve on the accused, unless by the proof on the part of the prosecution it is sufficiently manifest that the offense committed only amounted to manslaughter, or that the accused was justified or excused in committing the homicide." Appellant, Will Thomas contends that the reading of this section to the jury was prejudicial to him, because it suggested that, the killing being proved, there was a "shifting of the burden of proof" upon him. But this is not done or implied unless the killing has been proved, and there is nothing in the evidence that tends to mitigate, excuse or justify the killing. "The burden on the whole case is on the State and when evidence is introduced, either on the part of the State or the defendant, which tends to justify or excuse the act of the defendant, then if such evidence, in connection with the other evidence in the case, raises in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, the jury must acquit." Cogburn v. State, 76 Ark. 110, 88 S.W. 822. So he is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt as to the grade of the offense of which he may be guilty. This was explained by the instructions of the court to the jury in this case.
The appellant asked and the court refused to give the following instruction:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caughron v. State
...was given which told the jury that as to degree the doctrine of reasonable doubt had application as well as to the question of guilt. 85 Ark. 357, 359. Cf. Kirby's Digest, § 2386. 12. The court abused its discretion in refusing to grant time in which to file a bill of exceptions. Kirby's Di......
-
McGarrah v. State, 4605
...the jury that the burden was on the State to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. In Thomas v. State, 85 Ark. 357, 108 S.W. 224, the same contention was made as here; and the Court's opinion in that case, delivered by Mr. Justice Battle, is ruling in th......
-
Wilson v. State
... ... the burden to defendant of establishing his innocence, but ... the burden of proof to show guilt in the whole case still ... rests on the State. Cogburn v. State, 76 ... Ark. 110, 113, 88 S.W. 822; Tignor v ... State, 76 Ark. 489, 493, 89 S.W. 96; Thomas ... v. State, 85 Ark. 357, 358, 108 S.W. 224; ... Childs v. State, 98 Ark. 430, 437, 136 S.W ... 285; Walker v. State, 100 Ark. 180, 183, ... 139 S.W. 1139; Brock v. State, 101 Ark ... 147, 154, 141 S.W. 756; Scoggin v. State, ... 109 Ark. 510, 514, 159 S.W. 211; Johnson v ... State, 120 ... ...
- Carr v. State,