Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1908 |
| Citation | 114 S.W. 1184,88 Ark. 447 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court; Jacob M. Carter, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
William F. Kirby, Attorney General, Daniel Taylor, Assistant, for appellee; C. A. Cumingham, of counsel.
1. Evidence of threats were not admissible, as defendant was the sole aggressor, by his own testimony. 29 Ark. 248; 79 Id. 594; 72 Id. 427; 76 Id. 495; 55 Id. 604; 55 Id. 593.
2. There was no testimony upon which to base an instruction as to murder in the second degree. 21 Ark. 69; 23 Id. 730; 29 Id. 17; 52 Id. 120; 77 Id. 234.
3. The judgment should be affirmed, there being no error on the record as a whole. 10 Ark. 9.
Joe Thompson was indicted for murder in the first degree, committed by killing Miller Brown, and was convicted of that offense; and he appealed.
The defendant testified in his own behalf. He testified, in effect, that at night, while Miller Brown lay upon his bed, after deliberation and premeditation, he shot and killed him. He did so with the intent to kill because Brown threatened to kill him and wanted his wife. There was no evidence that Brown made any effort to kill him.
Appellant complains that the court refused to instruct the jury as follows:
"If in a trial for murder it has been proved that threats have been made by deceased against the defendant, and that they have been communicated to the defendant, they may be considered by the jury in making up their verdict to show defendant's motive."
Threats could not have mitigated, extenuated or palliated the conduct of the defendant. They could not have reduced the grade of the offense or reduced the punishment; and the court committed no prejudicial error in refusing it.
The appellant asked and the court refused to instruct the jury as to what is necessary to constitute murder in the second degree. There was no evidence tending to prove that appellant was guilty of a decree of offense lower than murder in the first degree; and the court committed no error in so refusing. Jones v. State, 52 Ark. 345, 12 S.W. 704; Fagg v. State, 50 Ark. 506, 8 S.W. 829; Curtis v. State, 36 Ark. 284.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
... ... for the court to refuse to give instructions authorizing the ... jury to return a verdict of guilty of one of the lower ... degrees of homicide. King v. State, 117 ... Ark. 82, 173 S.W. 852; Dewein v. State, 114 ... Ark. 472, 170 S.W. 582; Thompson v. State, ... 88 Ark. 447, 114 S.W. 1184; Ringer v ... State, 74 Ark. 262, 85 S.W. 410; Allison v ... State, 74 Ark. 444-453, 86 S.W. 409; Jones ... v. State, 52 Ark. 345, 12 S.W. 704; Fagg v ... State, 50 Ark. 506, 8 S.W. 829; Allen v ... State, 37 Ark. 433; ... ...
-
Dewein v. State
...1766. There was nothing in the case on which to base an instruction on murder in the second degree. 52 Ark. 345; 74 Ark. 444; 85 Ark. 514; 88 Ark. 447. 4. State had the right to challenge juror Gunter after he had been accepted by both sides, and there was no error in permitting it. 81 Ark.......
-
Kerby v. Road Improvement District No. 4, Saline County
...for failure to make a proper abstract as required by Rule 9; 136 Ark. 188; 101 Ark. 30; 80 Ark. 259; 81 Ark. 237; 110 Ark. 7; 57 Ark. 441; 88 Ark. 447; Ark. 64; 57 Ark. 304; 58 Ark. 448. Appellant Kerby was liable for the fourth estimate, also liable to appellee for payment to Reed for grub......
-
Henry v. State
...§ 2343. Under the indictment and evidence it was proper for the court to refuse to instruct the jury on murder in the second degree. 88 Ark. 447; 36 Ark. 284; 50 Ark. 506; 52 Ark. It was not error for the court to instruct the jury that all persons present aiding and abetting or ready and c......