{ "id": 1364125, "name": "Rogers v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. State", "decision_date": "1922-02-13", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "40", "last_page": "47", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "152 Ark. 40" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "137 Ark. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1568053 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/137/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ark. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1337099 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/110/0567-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ark. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1354057 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/102/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 Ark. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1311077 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/101/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 Ark. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1543564 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/95/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 Ark. 120", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1311114 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/101/0120-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 Ark. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1343980 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/107/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 Ark. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "87 Ark. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1519126 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/87/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 Ark. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1517145 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/88/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 Ark. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1569966 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/136/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 Ark. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1571550 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/135/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ark. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1511813 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/91/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Ark. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875625 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/34/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ark. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 Ark. 165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882926 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/29/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ark. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1885758 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/27/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ark. 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726868 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/26/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 Ark. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1536318 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/114/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ark. 712", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "115 Ark. 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1533821 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/115/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ark. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "79 Ark. 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1495706 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/79/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ark. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882893 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/29/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1505502 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/72/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ark. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "55 Ark. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1322223 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/55/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ark. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1529053 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/82/0595-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 Ark. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718046 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/130/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 Ark. 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1571559 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/135/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320377 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Ark. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875698 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/34/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727724 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/10/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Ark. 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727631 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/8/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 Ark. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1545458 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/94/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320402 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320350 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ark. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1309808 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/49/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 Ark. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1505553 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/72/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 Ark. 542", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1553193 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/125/0542-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Ark. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1561080 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/120/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Ark. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "89 Ark. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1515197 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/89/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ark. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1529053 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/82/0595-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 Ark. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718046 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/130/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 Ark. 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1571559 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/135/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Ark. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875698 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/34/0275-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 632, "char_count": 14034, "ocr_confidence": 0.49, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.4916476050659184e-08, "percentile": 0.281266205095355 }, "sha256": "db48a845cea541f1498a6fada2b9ae8339e7d34766b9974d4ec8bad7d9ac9de5", "simhash": "1:6ccb49b15e2f0470", "word_count": 2518 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:09:00.627662+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Rogers v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellant was convicted of assault with intent to kill upon his trial under an indictment which, omitting the formal parts, reads as follows: \u00a3 \u00a3 The said Earle Rogers in the county of Benton and State of Arkansas on the 11th day of November, 1921, feloniously, wilfully and with malice aforethought did commit an assault on one Alfred Elkins with a deadly weapon, to-wit, a pistol, with the felonious intent then and there to kill and murder him the said Alfred Elkins, no considerable provocation for said assault then and there appearing and the circumstances thereof showing an abandoned and malignant disposition on the part of him the said Earle Rogers, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.\u201d Appellant and Elkins had married two sisters, and both lived on a farm owned by appellant\u2019s father, of which appellant had possession under a contract to give his father a third of the crops grown on the place. Elkins was a sub-tenant of appellant, and had possession of a part of the farm under a written contract, which was offered in evidence, but does not appear to have been copied into the bill of exceptions. There was a meadow of about fifteen acres on the farm which Elkins claimed the right to use in common with appellant. This right appellant denied, and he testified that Elkins\u2019 right of pasturage was limited under the 'contract to a part of the meadow, about three acres in extent, which had been separately fenced and set apart to Elkins.\nAppellant took the contract to a justice of the peace of the township, and was advised by him that the contract gave Elkins no right to use the part of the meadow not assigned to Elkins.\nElkins persisted in using the entire meadow, and a bitter feeling sprung up between him and appellant on that account. Appellant turned Elkins\u2019 cattle out of the meadow on three occasions, and each time Elkins put them back in the meadow.\nAppellant\u2019s father was called as a witness, and was asked to tell, in his own way, what the trouble was between his son and Elkins, but the prosecuting attorney objected and assigned the following objection: \u201cI can see the purpose of that \u2014 trying to get in that knife deal again, and I object.\u201d The court ruled that the witness might testify as to any previous trouble between appellant and Elkins. The witness then proceeded to state that on Monday, before the shooting occurred on the following Thursday, he saw Elkins, and told him he had no right to' put his cattle in the meadow, and not to do so, and that Elkins called him a liar and went for his knife. The prosecuting attorney objected that \u201cthis witness has insisted on making that statement about the knife. I asked the court to tell the jury it is not competent evidence and not to consider it, after the court has sustained an objection three or four different times.\u201d The court ruled: \u201cJust strike that out, Mr. Stenographer, and also the jury will eliminate that from their consideration of the case.\u201d Thereupon counsel for appellant said: \u201cThe defendant insists that the testimony is competent, and will fee followed up by showing that the acts and conduct of the prosecuting witness at that time were communicated to the defendant, and goes to show the state of mind of the parties at the time of the difficulty and who was the aggressor, and the defendant excepts to the ruling of the court in refusing to permit said testimony.\u201d An objection to this question was sustained and exceptions saved, whereupon counsel for appellant asked the following question: \u201cNow, Mr. Rogers, I want to ask you this question, and don\u2019t answer it until Mr. Nance objects. I will ask you if on that occasion when you stated that Elkins went after his knife and called you a liar, if you immediately communicated that fact to your son?\u201d The prosecuting attorney objected to this question upon two grounds, first, that the question was immaterial, and, second, an objection had been sustained to it. In ruling upon this objection the court said: \u201cI will just sustain another objection.\u201d\nThe testimony as to what happened at the time of the shooting can not be reconciled. According to the testimony on behalf of the State, the appellant was told by his mother that Elkins\u2019 cattle were again in the meadow, whereupon appellant armed himself with a pistol and went at once to the meadow, where he met Elkins and assaulted him without provocation, first striking him with his fist, then the pistol, and thereafter firing twice at him, one of the shots taking effect in Elkins\u2019 leg. According to appellant, he went to the meadow for the purpose only of again turning the cattle out. It had been communicated to him that Elkins had said he would \u201cbeat the ears down\u201d of the appellant or any one he found turning his cattle out of the meadow, and that he armed himself for protection in the event only that he was assaulted, and that he was assaulted by Elkins, who knocked his hat off with the pistol and struck him in the face with his fist, whereupon he shot Elkins through the leg.\nIn this view of the testimony, it is insisted that it was error for the court to refuse to allow appellant\u2019s father to testify that Elkins assaulted him with a knife when he went, as the representative of his son, to remonstrate with Elkins about turning his cattle in the meadow.\nIn response to this contention, it is first said that appellant did not complete his record by showing what the elder Rogers would have testified had he been permitted to do so. But this is not true in view of the recitals of the record set out above. The witness stated that he was called a liar, and that Elkins \u201cwent for his knife,\u201d and the special objection of the prosecuting attorney to the question being asked the witness was that the defense was trying to prove that the witness had been assaulted by Elkins with a knife. Another objection made by the prosecuting attorney to the question in regard to the difficulty 'between the elder Rogers and Elkins was that bad reputation was 'being proved by a specific act.\nWe think the testimony by the elder Rogers was competent,.and that error was committed in excluding it. It was not an attempt to prove reputation. On the contrary, it tended to show the state of mind beween Elkins and appellant and had probative value in determining who was the aggressor. Appellant had undertaken to prove that Elkins had said he would \u201cbeat down the ears\u201d of any one who undertook to turn his cattle out of the meadow, and had assaulted appellant\u2019s father for denying that he (Elkins) had the right to use the pasture. Appellant testified that when he turned the cattle out of the meadow he did not know Elkins was near, and that Elkins came running to where he was and assaulted bim, and that Elkins had an object in his hand which he thought was a knife. As we have said, there was the sharpest conflict in the testimony just here, and the excluded testimony of the elder Bogers would have tended to show the purpose on the part of Elkins to assert and maintain, with force, his right to use the meadow against any one who questioned that right. If Elkins made such threats, or had such purpose, proof thereof would have had probative value in determining who the aggressor was when the fight occurred, and also in determining whether appellant had reason to believe he was in imminent danger of receiving great bodily harm when Elkins came running up to him, as the jury might have found that Elkins\u2019 threat of violence against the elder Bogers was in effect a threat against any one who sought to deprive him of the right to use the meadow. Blackburn v State, 135 Ark. 388; Cranford v. State, 130 Ark. 101; Burton v. State, 82 Ark. 595.\nIt is insisted that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the offense of assault with intent to kill is not committed unless there is shown a specific intent to take life. Such is the law; but, if the instructions are open to this objection, then it may be said that appellant cannot be heard to complain, for the reason that he did not ask an instruction to that effect.\nThe same answer may be made to the objection that the court did not define the lesser grades of assault embraced in the indictment.\nNumerous other assignments of error are argued; but we do not think they require discussion by us except that the objection to the sufficiency of the indictment is not well taken. The objection is that the testimony shows the pistol was used as a bludgeon, and was also used as a pistol by shooting it, and the indictment should therefore have alleged the manner in which the pistol was used in the attempt to kill. The answer to this insistence is that the indictment does not charge the crime of murder, but only an attempt to commit that crime, and in the case of Lacefield v: State, 34 Ark. 275, the court said: \u201cThe rule is well settled that in an indictment for an assault with intent to commit an offense, the same particularity is not necessary as is required in an indictment for the actual commission of the offense; and an indictment for an assault with intent to murder need not state the means made use of by the assailant to effect his murderous intent. They are matters of evidence to the jury.\u201d (Citing cases). State v. DeLong, 89 Ark. 391.\nFor the error in refusing to permit appellant\u2019s father to testify as to Elkins\u2019 conduct and threats when he spoke to Elkins about the use of the meadow, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Smith, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Walker & Walker and Duty S Duty, for appellant.", "J. S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Rogers v. State.\nOpinion delivered February 13, 1922.\n1. Homicide \u2014 assault with intent to kill \u2014 evidence.\u2014In a prosecution for assault with intent to kill, growing out of a dispute as to the right to use a meadow, the testimony of defendant\u2019s father who owned the meadow that a few days before the alleged assault he had been assaulted by the prosecuting witness with a knife because he had told defendant not to use the meadow, and that he had told defendant of such assault, was competent as tending to show the state of mind between defendant and the prosecuting witness and to show who was the aggressor.\n2. Homicide \u2014 assault with intent to kill \u2014 specific intent.-\u2014 In a prosecution for assault with intent to kill, the assault must be shown to have been made with a specific intent to take life.\n3. Criminal law \u2014 failure to give instruction- \u2014 request.\u2014In a prosecution for assault with intent to kill, defendant cannot complain of failure to give an instruction as to the specific intent to kill being necessary, in the absence of a request therefor.\n4. Criminal law \u2014 failure to give instruction \u2014 necessity of request. \u2014 In a prosecution for assault with intent to kill, defendant cannot complain of the court\u2019s failure to- define the lesser grades of assault, in the absence of a request for such an instruction.\n5. Homicide \u2014 assault with intent to kill \u2014 sufficiency of indictment.; \u2014 In -a prosecution for assault with intent to kill, an indictment alleging that defendant committed an assault \u201cwith a deadly weapon, to wit, a pistol,\u201d held sufficient, as against objection that the manner in which the pistol was used should have been alleged.\nAppeal from Benton Circuit Court; W. A. Dickson, Judge;\nreversed.\nWalker & Walker and Duty S Duty, for appellant.\nBefore a conviction for assault with intent to kill can be sustained, the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would have been guilty of either murder in the first or second degree, had death ensued from the assault. 47 Ark. 275; 120 Ark. 494; 125 Ark. 542; 72 Ark. 569.\nThe burden was upon the State, which it has failed to discharge, of proving a specific intent to kill. 96 Ark. 55; 49 Ark. 156; 54 Ark. 283; 54 Ark. 336 and 489; 94 Ark. 69. Neither has the State proved the other necessary element of malice to sustain the charge. 8 Ark. 451; 10 Ark. 318; 34 Ark. 275; 54 Ark. 335; 72 Ark. 569; 82 Ark. fi4.\nThe court erred in refusing to admit the testimony of D. P. Bogers as to the threats and hostile demonstration toward him by the prosecuting witness, which facts were communicated to the appellant. These acts were part of the res gestae and tended to throw light on the state of feeling existing on the part of Elkins. 135 Ark. 388; 130 Ark. 101; 82 Ark. 595; 55 Ark. 593; 59 Ark. 148; 72 Ark. 436; 29 Ark. 248; 79 Ark. 594; 76 Ark. 495.\nInstruction No. 4 correctly stated the law applicable to malice and intent, which are essential ingredients of the offense, and should have been given. 115 Ark. 566; 54 Ark. 283; 34 Ark. 275.\nInstruction 9 on the question of reasonable doubt as to the grade of the offense was not covered by any instruction given, and it was error to refuse it. 33 Ark. 712; 114 Ark. 201.\nThe indictment was defective in that it failed to allege the manner in which the assault was committed. 26 Ark. 323; 27 Ark. 493; 29 Ark. 165; 102 Ark. 595; 34 Ark. 263.\nThe court erred in not instructing the jury on manslaughter. 91 Ark. 570; 162 IT. S. 466; 162 IT. S. 313.\nJ. S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.\nThere was abundant evidence of the intent to kill on the part of appellant, and the jury so found, and its verdict will not be disturbed on appeal. 135 Ark. 117; 136 Ark. 385.\nAppellant is not in position to complain of the exclusion of the evidence of the father of appellant, as he failed to show what the testimony would have been. 88 Ark. 562; 87 Ark. 123; 133 Ark. 599. The difficulty about which the elder Rogers sought to testify was too remote to be a part of the res gestae. 107 Ark. 87.\nIt was not error to refuse appellant\u2019s instructions No. 4 and 9, as they were covered by others given. 101 Ark. 120.\nAn indictment for assault with intent to kill need not state the means made use of by the assailant to effect his intent, as in homicide cases. 34 Ark. 275; 13 R. O. L. 804.\nAppellant did not request any instruction on manslaughter, and cannot now complain. 95 Ark. 593; 101 Ark. 513; 102 Ark. 588; 110 Ark. 567; 137 Ark. 530." }, "file_name": "0040-01", "first_page_order": 64, "last_page_order": 71 }