{ "id": 1481891, "name": "Parnell v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Parnell v. State", "decision_date": "1944-07-10", "docket_number": "4353", "first_page": "644", "last_page": "649", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "207 Ark. 644" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "182 S.W.2d 206" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "277 S. W. 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 Ark. 1058", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1374120 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/169/1058-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S. W. 1122", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 Ark. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1537518 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/113/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S. W. 296", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 Ark. 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722809 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0491-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 550, "char_count": 9147, "ocr_confidence": 0.49, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08, "percentile": 0.34594430022754225 }, "sha256": "553de12ae61a2631a9ff46120d2b19f7b3c18a976eeb1eafc92947eba8d8ab25", "simhash": "1:8f66c0f17f828cb1", "word_count": 1620 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:46:39.394631+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Parnell v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Holt, J.\nAppellant, Hubert Parnell, shot and killed Harry Henderson, the town marshal of Bradford, Arkansas, on October 5, 1943. He was indicted for murder in the first degree, found guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree and his punishment fixed at a term of twenty-one years in the state penitentiary. From the judgment comes this appeal.\nFor reversal, appellant questions (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, (2) the refusal of the court to give certain instructions- requested by him, and (3) the admissibility of certain testimony.\n1. The evidence most favorable to the state is to the following effect. At about 9 o\u2019clock on the night of October 5, appellant went into Mrs. Scantlin\u2019s cafe in Bradford, and upon observing his wife sitting on a stool at the counter beside a man by the name of Charlie Turner and talking to him, appellant became enraged and began slapping her. He testified that he objected to% his wife\u2019s having anything to do with Turner. Mrs. Scantlin tried to persuade him to cease striking his wife, and appellant replied: \u201cThis is my wife and I can hit her if I want to. . . . Why don\u2019t you call the law, the damn s \u2014 of\u2014a\u2014b won\u2019t arrest me. . . .1 dare you to call the law, that damn Harry Henderson neyer will arrest me.\u201d Appellant and Ms wife then left the cafe and on their way home, a short distance from the town, appellant was observed at two different times to strike his wife and knock her down.\nT. C. Wilson, the night marshal, was attracted by Mrs. Parnell\u2019s screams and upon going over, said \u201cWhat is going on here?\u201d Appellant answered, \u201cYou had better stay out of this, this is a family affair, this is my wife and I caught her talking to another man. \u2019 \u2019 Wilson then told appellant that he was an officer, whereupon, appellant said \u201cI don\u2019t give a damn if you are Jesus \u2022Christ and I had as soon die and go to Hell tonight as not.\u201d Appellant and his wife then proceeded a short distance down the highway when Mrs. Parnell screamed again for help, whereupon Wilson called Harry Henderson, the marshal. When Henderson came upon the scene, along with a man by the name of Clyde Whitley, Parnell, after cursing Wilson, said to Henderson: \u201cHarry, you can\u2019t arrest me. I will kill both of you.\u201d While attempting to' make the arrest, Wilson struck appellant on the head inflicting a slight wound. Appellant then ran and, crossing a field, went to his home, where his wife joined him a few minutes later. Harry Henderson, Wilson and two other men shortly thereafter, after having first procured a warrant, followed appellant to his home to arrest him. Upon approaching the house, they saw a light in one of the back windows. There is a porch about 14 ft. x 6 ft. in front of the house. Henderson walked up to within three feet of the porch and said: \u201cHubert,\u201d appellant answered \u201cyes,\u201d and came to the open door with a rifle. \u201cHe came up with the gun and fired.\u201d This was all done in \u201cI don\u2019t think over two seconds.\u201d The shot struck Henderson in the side and he died a few minutes later from the wound.\n\u2022 Mrs. Immogene Ray tended to corroborate Wilson\u2019s testimony as to the abusive language used by appellant toward Wilson.\nClyde Whitley testified that he called Harry Henderson after he had heard a woman\u2019s voice in distress. He drove Henderson and Wilson to the place where appellant was abusing Ms wife and when Wilson got out, Parnell said, \u201cDon\u2019t try to arrest me, you can\u2019t arrest me.\u201d\nDallas Stewart and Alvia Pennington, wbo accompanied Henderson and Wilson to appellant\u2019s house to arrest Mm, corroborated the testimony of Wilson as to the manner in which Henderson was killed by appellant.\nW. D. Walker, a member of the state police force, testified that appellant told Mm when he shot Henderson he thought he was shooting at Charlie Turner, whom he said had been \u201cplaying\"around\u201d with his wife.\nW. D. Whitley, another state witness, said that he was mayor of Bradford in 1943, that Harry Henderson was elected marshal in April, 1943, and that Henderson arrested appellant for fighting in July of that year, and that the fine was collected by Harry Henderson. This was the only fine assessed against appellant.\nMrs. Otis Wyatt testified that appellant said, in her presence in September, prior to the killing, that he had paid a fine but that it was not over.\nMarcus Osborne testified that about two months prior to Henderson\u2019s death, he heard appellant say, \u201cIf Mr. Henderson said anything to him he would run bim in the river and drown him.\u201d\nJoe Williams testified that he heard appellant, in speaking of Harry Henderson, say that \u201che was going to run that s \u2014 of\u2014a\u2014b in the river.\u201d\nAndrew McDougal testified that about three weeks before Henderson was killed, he heard appellant say, \u201cThere is a guy (meaning Henderson) that just ain\u2019t big enough to arrest me, I wouldn\u2019t go with him.\u201d\nThere was testimony on the part of appellant that he did not intend to kill Harry Henderson, that he had nothing against him, that he thought he was shooting at Charlie Turner, whom his wife had told him had made indecent proposals to her, that he had warned his wife t\u00f3 stay away from Turner, and that he was protecting his home.\nWe have reviewed all the testimony and think it was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the killing was done under such circumstances as made it the crime of murder in the second degree. White v. State, 74 Ark. 491, 86 S. W. 296; Hall v. State, 113 Ark. 454, 168 S. W. 1122.\n2. Appellant apparently does not seriously contend that there was error in the instructions. On this point he says: \u201cWhile not abandoning these grounds, counsel for appellant is inclined toward the conclusion that while the proffered instructions were a correct declaration of the law in the case, perhaps most of them were covered by instructions given by the court on his own motion.\u201d In this connection, it suffices to say that we have carefully reviewed all the instructions, and we think all issues were fairly and fully covered by correct and clear declarations of the applicable law.\n3. Appellant next insists that the court erred in admitting the testimony of W. D. Whitley, supra, relating to the arrest of appellant by Harry Henderson, the imposition of a fine against appellant following this arrest and some three months prior to the killing, and Henderson\u2019s subsequent collection from appellant of the fine imposed. We think, however, the objection untenable since the testimony tended to show appellant\u2019s motive and his state of mind or attitude toward Harry Henderson.\nAppellant also argues that there was error in admitting the testimony of Mrs. Otis Wyatt, supra, to the effect that sometime in September, prior to the killing, she heard appellant, in a conversation, say that he had paid a fine, but it was not over. We think, however, that no error appears for the reason that this testimony likewise tended to show motive on the part of appellant.\nAppellant assigns as error the action of the trial court in refusing to permit appellant to testify relative to a conversation, alleged to have taken place between him and his son. The conversation referred to was as follows: \u201cQ. You said do what? A. I said, \u2018Son, are yon afraid to go down, and get Albert to come up here, I bave killed Harry Henderson\u2019 and be said, \u2018Daddy, I am afraid, but . . .\u2019 \u201d We tbink tbis testimony properly refused for tbe reason that it is in' tbe nature of a self-serving declaration.\nFinally, appellant says that tbe trial court erred in admitting tbe following testimony of witness, J. C. Hart, on bebalf of tbe state in rebuttal. \u201cQ. Did any conversation occur between Mr. Plant and Parnell about tbe killing on tbe way back? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell tbe jury what it was. A. On tbe way back Mr. Plant asked Parnell wby be killed Harry Henderson, and be said be didn\u2019t know be was killing bim, be said, \u2018I tbougbt I was killing tbe man that was running around with my wife,\u2019 and Mr. Plant said, \u2018You will bave a bard time making a jury believe that.\u2019 He said, \u2018I don\u2019t give a HD- wbat tbe jury believes.\u2019 \u201d We tbink tbe testimony was properly admitted as it tended to sbow appellant\u2019s state of mind and attitude wben be fired tbe sbot that took tbe life of Harry Henderson.\nWhile it appears that tbe trial court did not require tbis testimony to be presented by tbe state as a part of its case in chief, tbis was not error. We so held in Crosby v. State, 169 Ark. 1058, 277 S. W. 523. (Headnote 2): \u201cIn a prosecution for a felony, though it would bave been fairer to tbe accused to require tbe state to produce its essential witnesses as part of its case in chief, rather than to allow such witnesses to testify after accused\u2019s testimony bad been offered, tbe latter procedure did not constitute reversible error in view of tbe discretion vested in tbe trial court in tbe matter of tbe order of introducing testimony.\u201d\nFinding no error, tbe judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Pickens <& Pickens, for appellant.", "Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Parnell v. State.\n4353\n182 S. W. 2d 206\nOpinion delivered July 10, 1944.\nPickens <& Pickens, for appellant.\nGuy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0644-01", "first_page_order": 682, "last_page_order": 687 }