{ "id": 1411063, "name": "Wells v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Wells v. State", "decision_date": "1937-04-29", "docket_number": "4-4022", "first_page": "1092", "last_page": "1095", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "193 Ark. 1092" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "58 S. W. 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ark. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 S. W. 1015", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 Ark. 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1589364 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/143/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ark. 614", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727445 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/26/0614-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ark. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726879 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/26/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ark. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727346 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/26/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ark. 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726868 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/26/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 S. W. 467", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ark. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1324592 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/57/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 S. W. 251", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 Ark. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1507880 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/71/0100-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 311, "char_count": 5723, "ocr_confidence": 0.481, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.3733771931090134e-07, "percentile": 0.8759628457103098 }, "sha256": "171e01428c685a7fb0cee8d0738a5c3cab8f8e16c2ecbc77d0e9e00487846a55", "simhash": "1:5839e297be300a77", "word_count": 1021 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:08.157459+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Wells v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McHaney, J.'\nAppellant was indicted on November 16, 1936, charged with murder in the first degree for the killing of one Henry Shaw by administering to him strychnine poisoning on September 7,1936. On November 17, 1936, at his request, the time for arraignment was waived, and he was arraigned and entered his plea of guilty to the charge. A jury was impaneled, sworn, and the cause submitted to it on the evidence adduced, the guilty plea, the instructions of the court, and the argument of counsel. Whereupon the following verdict was rendered: \u201cWe, the jury, find the defendant guilty and fix Ms punishment at death. \u2019 \u2019 On this verdict, judgment was entered sentencing him to death by electrocution. The case is here on appeal.\nFor a reversal of- the judgment, counsel for appellant argue that there is no evidence in the record to show that deceased died of strychnine poisoning. We have carefully considered the testimony and find it amply sufficient. While it is true that there were no objections or exceptions to any of the proceedings or testimony and no motion for a new trial, we are not precluded from an examination of the record for error apparent on its face and we have done so.\nSection 3205 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest reads as follows: \u201cThe jury shall, in all cases of murder, on conviction of the accused, find by their verdict whether he be guilty of murder in the first or second degree; but if the accused confess his guilt, the court shall empanel a jury and examine testimony, and the degree of crime shall be found by such jury.\u201d It was under the authority of this statute that the court attempted to proceed in this case. At the conclusion of the evidence offered- by the state, there being no evidence for the defendant, the court instructed the jury as follows: \u201cThe defendant in this case has entered his plea of guilty to .the charge against-him in the indictment; that is, of murder in the first degree. The law provides in 'such cases that the jury shall be empaneled to assess his punishment.\n\u201cThe question for you to determine in this case is that of the punishment to be imposed. The law provides that the punishment in such cases shall be death or life imprisonment in the penitentiary.\u201d\n\u201cYou have heard the testimony of the witnesses relating the facts and circumstances in connection with the case, and it is your duty now to retire and fix the: punishment.\u201d\nWhile it is true that appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree by poisoning which, under the statute is made murder in the first degree, \u00a7 2343, Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, still the instruction above set out was error under said \u00a7 3205, above quoted, and the verdict of the jury was bad in that it failed to find the degree of the crime. By \u00a7 3205, \u201cBut if the accused confess his guilt, the court shall empanel a jury and examine testimony, and the degree of crime shall be found by such jury,\u201d the court\u2019s instruction would not leave it to the jury to find the degree of the crime. After telling the jury that the defendant had entered his plea of guilty to murder in the first degree, the court told the jury that it was \u201cempaneled to assess the punishment.\u201d And again that the only question for them to determine was \u201cthat of the punishment to be imposed. \u2019 \u2019 And again he told the jury that it was their \u201cduty now to retire and fix the punishment.\u201d The statute provides that \u201cthe degree of crime shall be found by such jury,\u201d not merely to fix the-punishment or assess the punishment. The instructions in effect told the jury that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree and that they could fix his punishment either at death by electrocution or life imprisonment. This was error. The verdict of, the jury was defective in that it failed to find the degree of the crime. In the case of Lancaster v. State, 71 Ark. 100, 71 S. W. 251, this court, referring to the statute which is now \u00a7 3205 of Crawford & Moses \u2019 Digest, said: \u2018 \u2018 This statute was no doubt overlooked by the circuit judge, for. under it this court has several times decided that a verdict upon an indictment for .murder which does not find the degree of murder is so defective that no judgment can be entered upon it. Porter v. State, 57 Ark. 267, 21 S. W. 467, and cases cited. The statute, it will be seen, requires that there should be a special finding of the degree of murder by a jury, even though the defendant confess his guilt.\u201d See, also, Thompson v. State, 26 Ark. 323; Trammel v. State, 26 Ark. 534; Allen v. State, 26 Ark. 333; Neville v. State, 26 Ark. 614; Banks v. State, 143 Ark. 154, 219 S. W. 1015. In Hembree v. State, 68 Ark. 621, 58 S. W. 350, the judgment was reversed for the same reason, that the jury failed to find the degree of the crime, without the question having been raised by counsel on appeal to this court. It was reversed on the. court\u2019s own motion, and the fact that this opinion was not officially reported shows how-thoroughly the question is considered settled 'by this court. As said in the Banks case, supra, \u2018 \u2018 The statute was enacted shortly after Arkansas was admitted into the Union and has been uniformly construed by the court to be mandatory.\u201d So in this case, the error in the instructions and the defectiveness of the verdict have not been raised by appellant, but we do so of our own motion because the instructions given were erroneous and the verdict rendered so defective that no valid judgment could be rendered thereon.\nFor these reason the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "McHaney, J.'" } ], "attorneys": [ "J. R. Long, for appellant.", "Jack Holt, Attorney General, and John P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Wells v. State.\n4-4022\nOpinion delivered April 29, 1937.\nJ. R. Long, for appellant.\nJack Holt, Attorney General, and John P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1092-01", "first_page_order": 1110, "last_page_order": 1113 }