{ "id": 1475757, "name": "Lewis v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Lewis v. State", "decision_date": "1945-10-01", "docket_number": "4391", "first_page": "51", "last_page": "54", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "209 Ark. 51" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "189 S.W.2d 641" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "206 Ark. 887", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1484984 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0887-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 726", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485047 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0726-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S. W. 886", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 Ark. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1592934 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/141/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 S. W. 1063", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 Ark. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1583188 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/147/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 S. W. 524", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 Ark. 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1351999 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/103/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 S. W. 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ark. 1187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 S. W. 2d 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 Ark. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1438658 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/184/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 S. W. 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Ark. 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1533821 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/115/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 S. W. 1024", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320402 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 S. W. 2d 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 Ark. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1425501 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/189/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S. W. 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ark. 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1511782 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/91/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Am. St. Rep. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Am. St. Rep.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 S. W. 889", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320350 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Am. Rep. 8", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "Am. Rep.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ark. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875698 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/34/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 Ark. 1100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1488129 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/205/1100-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 Ark. 1049", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1488181 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/205/1049-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 495, "char_count": 7115, "ocr_confidence": 0.506, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7710994026850012e-07, "percentile": 0.7117019177565951 }, "sha256": "963fcc4c6f00135a7434101edc2c88f27a4a540d839d478032e3269a8c2fb97c", "simhash": "1:d636e37f85b48299", "word_count": 1349 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:59.179776+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Lewis v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Holt, J.\nAppellant was charged by information with tbe crime of assault with intent to kill \u201cH. J. Bosler with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a knife.\u201d He was found guilty by the jury and his punishment fixed at one year in the state penitentiary. For reversal of the judgment, appellant alleges five grounds in his motion for a new trial. The first four questioned the sufficiency of the evidence, and the fifth alleges that \u201cthe court erred in permitting the introduction of the knife in the evidence without sufficient showing that said knife was used in the assault.\u201d\nThe facts when viewed in the light most favorable to the State (Cheney v. State, 205 Ark. 1049, 172 S. W. 2d 427) are: At about 9:30 p. m., after attending a picture show with two ladies in the city of Jonesboro, the victim of appellant\u2019s assault, Mr. Bosler, and the two ladies got in Bosler\u2019s car. Bosler was in the rear seat, and one of the ladies was driving, when they noticed appellant driving a car on the wrong side of the street. There was another Negro in the car with appellant. Bosler testified: \u201cWhen they got close enough for me to see who they were, there was Ralph Donelson and Frank Lewis, and Frank Lewis was so. drunk he was staggering. I went and got out of my ear arid got my gun, which was in its holster, out of glove box, and I stepped around and the gun was down beside me and I asked Frank what was wrong, and he said \u2018There\u2019s not a Goddamned thing wrong with me,\u2019 and I said \u2018You\u2019re under arrest,\u2019 and he said \u2018You can\u2019t arrest me, I haven\u2019t done anything.\u2019 I said \u2018Come on, Frank, get in the car,\u2019 and he refused to do it. He said I couldn\u2019t arrest him as he hadn\u2019t done anything. I not only had the right as mayor of Jonesboro to arrest him, but I also have a duly filed commission in the sheriff\u2019s office just the same as any deputy sheriff. . . . Frank came towards me and pushed me and I fell and when I got up he started again toward me. My gun was still in its holster, and I hit him on the side of the head and knocked him down. He came upon me the second time after he got up and I struck him with the gun sideways. He was cursing all that time.\u201d Appellant had his hands behind him as he advanced on Bosler.\nDuring the encounter, appellant cut-Bosler with a knife. Bosler testified: \u201cThere was a cut place on my wrist here. I went to the doctor' and had him dress the wound on my right wrist; the cut was about three-quarters of an inch long and it went clear to the bone. The wound has healed, but there still is a scar there and the bone is welted and swollen from the knife point striking the bone. There was a wound here, right about where my finger is, about half an inch deep. When I took off my coat and looked at it, I found three cuts, but the padding on my coat kept the knife from going through.\u201d\nAppellant finally got in the Bosler car and after they had reached the police\u2018Station, he was searched and a white-handled knife was found in his pocket. One of the ladies testified \"that Mr. Bosler told appellant, \u201cYou\u2019re under arrest; come and get in the car. . . . He (appellant) had something in his hand. I said \u2018Look out, he has something in his hand,\u2019 and when I got out of the car, Mr. Bosler had knocked him down to the ground, and when he started getting up \u2014 when this \u2022Negro man started getting up \u2014 he had this knife in his hand. I could see the knife in his hand, and Mr. Bosler told him \u2014 he got him by the arm when he started to get to his feet, and this other colored man with him said, \u2018This is the mayor. Come on and get in the car and let\u2019s go on with the mayor,\u2019 and he wouldn\u2019t and he kept resisting arrest. ... I knew that he (appellant) had been drinking because I could tell from the way he was cursing \u2014 the way he was talking; I could tell that.\u201d\nAppellant and his witnesses gave a different version of the encounter which made a disputed question of fact for the jury. The court fully instructed the jury on the law governing the case and there is no complaint as to any instructions given. In its instructions, the court declared the law as announced many times by this court in a case of assault with intent to kill, such as is presented here.\nOne of our most recent eases is that of Craig v. State, 205 Ark. 1100, 172 S. W. 2d 256, wherein we said: \u201cIn order to sustain the charge of assault with intent to kill proof of two distinct elements are necessary: (1) a specific intent to take life, and (2) facts which would have been sufficient to have sustained a conviction of murder if death had resulted from the assault. Lacefield v. State, 34 Ark. 275, 36 Am. Rep. 8; Chrisman v. State, 54 Ark. 283, 15 S. W. 889, 26 Am. St. Rep. 44; Chowning v. State, 91 Ark. 503, 121 S. W. 735, 18 Ann. Cas. 529; Francis v. State, 189 Ark. 288, 71 S. W. 2d 469. . . . Although, the State is required to -prove- that the defendant actually intended to kill, it need not depend upon declarations made by the defendant to establish such fact. While the intent,to kill cannot be implied as a matter of law, it may be inferred from facts and circumstances of the assault, such as the use of a deadly weapon in a matter indicating an intention to kill, or an act of violence which ordinarily would be calculated to produce death, or great bodily harm.. In determining whether or not the intent to kill should be inferred, the trier of the facts may properly consider the character of the weapon employed and the way it was used, the man: ner of \u2022 the assault and the violence attendant thereon; the nature, extent and location on the body of the wound inflicted, if any; the state of feeling existing between the parties at and anterior to the difficulty; statements o'f the defendant, if any; and all other facts and circumstances tending to reveal defendant\u2019s state of mind. Chrisman v. State, 54 Ark. 283, 15 S. W. 889, 26 Am. St. Rep. 44; Beavers v. State, 54 Ark. 336, 15 S. W. 1024; Davis v. State, 115 Ark. 566, 173 S. W. 829; Killian v. State, 184 Ark. 239, 42 S. W. 2d 12; Higgins v. State, 171 Ark. 1187, 285 S. W. 359. It is not essential that the intent should have existed for any particular length of time before the assault, as it may be conceived in a moment. Hankins v. State, 103 Ark. 28, 145 S. W. 524; Evans v. State, 147 Ark. 69, 226 S. W. 1063; Slaytor v. State, 141 Ark. 11, 215 S. W. 886.\u201d See, also, Davis v. State, 206 Ark. 726, 177 S. W. 2d 190; and Wilhite v. State, 206 Ark. 887, 178 S. W. 2d 55.\nHere we think the jury was warranted in finding that appellant entertained the intent to kill Bosler at the time he attacked and cut him with a knife.\nThere was no error in admitting the knife in evidence. It was positively identified by one of the ladies as being the one which she saw in appellant\u2019s hand during the encounter, and later it was taken from appellant\u2019s pocket at the police station.\nFinding no error, the judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Bon McCourtney and Claude B. Brinton, for appellant.", "Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Lewis v. State.\n4391\n189 S. W. 2d 641\nOpinion delivered October 1, 1945.\nBon McCourtney and Claude B. Brinton, for appellant.\nGuy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0051-01", "first_page_order": 67, "last_page_order": 70 }