Weatherford v. State

• Decision Date: 17 February 1906
• Citation: 93 S.W. 61,78 Ark. 36
• Parties: WEATHERFORD v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

93 S.W. 61

78 Ark. 36

WEATHERFORD v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 17, 1906

Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; John W. Meeks, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

H. L Ponder, for appellant.

Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General.

1. There was no abuse of discretion in refusing the motion for continuance.

2. The court's right to instruct the jury as to the weight to be attached to the defendant's testimony is fully settled. 62 Ark. 556.

OPINION

RIDDICK, J.

The defendant, Jake Weatherford, was indicted by the grand jury of Randolph County for murder in the second degree for killing Joseph Williams by striking him on the head with a bottle.

The evidence shows that on 6th of November, 1904, Weatherford and Williams and some other young men were playing cards in a thicket. They had whisky, which several of them drank. They wagered small sums of money on the game which they were playing, and the result was that defendant lost what small amount of cash he had, which was less than a dollar. After this he started away. As he went away, he picked up a sack of crackers which belonged to Williams, and which he had placed on the ground near where the game was being played. Weatherford opened the sack of crackers, and began to eat some of them. In doing so he tore the sack and scattered some of the crackers on the ground. Williams then said to him "If you want some of those crackers, eat them like a man, but do not waste them in that way." Weatherford then threw the sack down. There is a conflict in the evidence as to what happened afterwards.

The witnesses for the State say that Williams went to where the crackers were scattered on the ground, and began to pick them up, and that while he was doing this Weatherford turned back and hit him on the head with a bottle he held in his hand. On the other hand, the witnesses for the defendant testified that Williams, when Weatherford threw the crackers down, went up to him and attempted to cut him with a knife and that Weatherford then hit him with a bottle.

The effect of the blow was that Williams was knocked down and became unconscious not long afterwards. He was taken home. Doctors were sent for, who took out a piece of the skull, and found that there was a large amount of clotted blood next to the brain, and that the brain itself had been injured by the blow. Williams never regained consciousness, and died that night. The defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to one year in the penitentiary.

These young men were hardly more than boys, the defendant being 21 and deceased 20 years of age. It is evident that the killing was not intentional, but the evidence fully supports the finding that it was not done in self-defense, and that the defendant is guilty of some degree of homicide. As the jury found him guilty of the lowest degree of homicide, the judgment must be affirmed, unless there was some prejudicial error in the proceedings at the trial.

The court instructed the jury fully as to the law of the case and the only complaint made is that he told the jury that they had the right, in estimating the weight to be attached to the testimony of the defendant, to consider his interest in the trial and verdict. But this court has repeatedly held that it was not error for the trial judge to give such an instruction. Hamilton v. State, 62 Ark. 543, 36 S.W. 1054; Jones v....