Woodall and Hickman v. State
| Decision Date | 20 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | 4170 |
| Citation | Woodall and Hickman v. State, 200 Ark. 665, 140 S.W.2d 424 (Ark. 1940) |
| Parties | WOODALL AND HICKMAN v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Dexter Bush, Judge; modified and affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.
John H. Wright, for appellant.
Jack Holt,Attorney General and Jno P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The Prosecuting Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit filed information against appellants in the circuit court of Clark county charging them jointly with unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously taking, stealing and carrying away one two-year-old Hereford steer of the value of $ 40, the property of Dave Triplett.
Appellants were tried, convicted and adjudged to serve a term of eight years each in the state penitentiary as a punishment for the crime, from which judgment they have duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.
The first assignment of error urged for a reversal of the judgment of conviction is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdicts of guilty and especially to sustain the verdict of guilty against Bryant Hickman.
Viewing the evidence in the most favorable light to the state, the record reflects that Dave Triplett was the owner of a two-year-old Hereford steer colored red with a white face marked with an over half crop off and underbit in the right ear and branded with a "Bar U" on the right hip that in the month of December, 1939, the steer was running on the open range along Sky Line Drive in Clark county and was fat; that it had horns about six inches long; that Red Thomasson, Morris Turner and Jackie Kirksey saw appellants in possession of a white faced red steer with a rope on him, one of them riding a horse, and the other walking driving the steer along Sky Line Drive going east in the direction of Dewey Woodall's home and coming from Bryant Hickman's father's home; that Newt Francis and Olin Thomasson about that time found where a beef had been butchered one-fourth of a mile from where Dewey Woodall lived, and one hundred and seventy-five yards from that point in a pine thicket found a steer's head with horns indicating the animal was about two years old; that the ears of the animal had been cut off; that prior to finding where the beef had been butchered the wife of Newt Francis had bought some beef from Dewey Woodall, and this caused him to make an investigation; that Wiley Finley bought some beef about the same time from appellant, and when they started to drive away Bryant Hickman thanked him for buying it; that on or about the 21st day of December, 1939, Sherman Caver, a deputy sheriff, made an investigation of the affair and overtook appellants in a wagon with a can and two wash tubs full of beef; that he became suspicious and interrogated them; that Dewey said he had killed a yearling he had raised, and that the hide was in his barn; that it was a calf he had bought from Thomas Shepherd, and that the calf was not branded; that later in the day Dewey told him that the hide was off of a cow he had in a pasture at Claud Chancellor's; that he then went to the barn to see the hide, but did not see any brand on it at that time; that Dewey took him to the place where he had butchered the animal; but he did not find the head; that he then got the hide which was a large one and took appellants to Amity and then returned to the pine thicket where the animal was butchered, and Mr. Francis informed him where the head was, and they went there and found the head and finally one ear which had been covered up; that Bryant Hickman was present when he interrogated Dewey Woodall and said to him that Dewey was telling him right; that he then took the head, hide, and ear to Dave Triplett, and Dave Triplett identified them as being the hide, head, and ear of his two-year-old Hereford steer; that the head, ear, and hide were kept by Dave Triplett and were introduced for the inspection of the jury at the trial of the case.
Dewey Woodall testified in his own behalf and explained to the jury that the animal he killed was the calf of the cow he bought from Thomas Shepherd early in the spring of 1939, saying that it only weighed about one hundred and seventy-five pounds when dressed, and it only made a can and one tub of beef.He denied that he told the deputy sheriff the hide had no brand on it and denied telling the deputy sheriff that it was the hide off of a cow he had in the pasture of Claud Chancellor and claimed to have marked and branded the animal he killed himself.He also testified that when they butchered the animal, they did not cut the ears off and hide them, but that they left the head with the ears on it where they killed it.He also made the further explanation that the animal he killed came up to M. T. Hickman's home off the range, and that he identified it as his own in the presence of Bryant Hickman, and that he got Hickman to help take it to his home and kill it and sell part of it.
They introduced Thomas Shepherd as a witness who testified he sold Dewey Woodall a cow and calf early in the spring of 1939, and that the calf was red and had a white face.They also introduced M. T. Hickman, the father of Bryant Hickman, and Ira Hickman, who testified that Dewey Woodall identified the white faced Hereford yearling that came in off the range as his property in the presence of Bryant Hickman, and that Dewey Woodall got Bryant Hickman to help him drive it home.
The testimony introduced by the state was sufficient to sustain the verdicts of guilty.There was ample evidence from which the jury might find that the steer was the property of Dave Triplett, and that both appellants took possession of it, killed and sold a part of it.
It is true that Dewey Woodall made an explanation to the effect that the animal was his own, and that he so informed Bryant...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Anderson v. State
... ... cases. Bowser v. State, 194 Ark. 182, 106 ... S.W.2d 176; Morris v. State, 197 Ark. 778, ... 126 S.W.2d 93; Woodall v. State, 200 Ark ... 665, 140 S.W.2d 424; Davis v. State, 202 ... Ark. 948, 154 S.W.2d 812; Krokrich v ... State, 208 Ark. 208, 185 S.W.2d 922 ... ...
-
Turley v. State, CA
...Osborne v. State, 237 Ark. 170, 371 S.W.2d 518 (1963); Bailey v. State, 206 Ark. 121, 173 S.W.2d 1010 (1943); and Woodall v. State, 200 Ark. 665, 140 S.W.2d 424 (1940) as authority for such a disposition. It should, perhaps, be noted in passing that several of those cases are distinguishabl......
-
Lee and Stewart v. State
... ... the satisfaction of the jury, is sufficient to sustain a ... conviction of larceny. It was so held in Woodall and ... Hickman v. State, ante, p. 665, 200 ... Ark. 665, 140 S.W.2d 424 ... It was ... there said: "The jury were not bound ... ...
-
Davis v. State
... ... sufficient to sustain a conviction of the larceny thereof ... Daniels v. State, 168 Ark. 1082, 272 S.W ... 833; Woodall and Hickman v. State, 200 Ark ... 665, 140 S.W.2d 424, and cases cited therein ... Another ... argument made for a reversal is ... ...