{ "id": 8720711, "name": "Griffin v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Griffin v. State", "decision_date": "1946-09-30", "docket_number": "4417", "first_page": "388", "last_page": "392", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "210 Ark. 388" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "196 S.W.2d 484" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "206 Ark. 690", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1484993 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0690-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 635", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485085 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0635-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 Ark. 927", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1449908 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/202/0927-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 S. W. 2d 842", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 Ark. 964", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1453438 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/200/0964-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 S. W. 2d 900", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 Ark. 46", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1411105 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/193/0046-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 S. W. 632", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 Ark. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1385567 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/162/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S. W. 963", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1360528 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/155/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S. W. 547", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ark. 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 S. W. 206", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 Ark. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1341161 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/109/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S. W. 161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 Ark. 698", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 S. W. 752", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 Ark. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1491130 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/80/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S. W. 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ark. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1909774 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/66/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 S. W. 16", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ark. 4", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1326065 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/56/0004-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Ark. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1890480 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/46/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ark. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1892069 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/45/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ark. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1873874 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/35/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 Ark. 233", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1444145 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/204/0233-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 483, "char_count": 6820, "ocr_confidence": 0.448, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.987290987377983e-08, "percentile": 0.5027746791415253 }, "sha256": "c64a3c9c1f06196616568b4eda4268a21dbaadb8f9fb788aa6660618ed2fc8e9", "simhash": "1:017c308f556eface", "word_count": 1276 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:55.346799+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Griffin v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EobiNS, J.\nAppellant, Beulah Griffin, charged by information with the offense of murder in the first degree alleged to have been committed by shooting to death Helen Mason, another negro woman, was by a jury convicted of voluntary manslaughter and her punishment fixed at two and one-half years confinement in the penitentiary. She has appealed.\nFor reversal it is first urged by appellant that the verdict was not supported by any substantial testimony.\nAppellant admitted doing the shooting, but claimed that she fired in self-defense and that she intended not to kill Helen, but only to stop her in her hostile advance upon appellant. At the time of the difficulty, appellant was operating a restaurant in the negro section of Benton, Arkansas. Helen had been patronizing appellant\u2019s place of business and a dispute arose as to an alleged overcharge in Helen\u2019s bill.\nSonny Green, a witness for the state, testified that he.was asleep in a little back room of appellant\u2019s cafe when the trouble between appellant and deceased began and that appellant requested him to call the officers; that appellant said to Helen twice: \u201cDon\u2019t follow me\u201d; and Helen said to appellant: \u201cPlease give me my dollar and a half\u201d; that the gun was then fired; that he saw nothing in Helen\u2019s hand; that when he went to phone the officers Helen put her hands on him, but he pushed her back.\nThe coroner testified that lie.found Helen\u2019s body lying on the floor and that she died from a bullet wound either in the heart or \u201cthe big artery of the heart\u201d; that Helen had nothing in her hands except a paper sack which was clutched in her left hand and which contained an old, thin rayon dress rolled up and a skirt rolled up in another paper sack. There was no proof that Helen had any weapon at the time of the killing.\nAppellant testified in substance: That Helen, after Laving previously asserted that sLe Lad been overcharged by appellant, came back to appellant\u2019s cafe. \u201cSLe said \u2018Do you intend to pay me my dollar and a lialf or not\u2019?, and 1 said \u20181 Laven\u2019t got it\u2019. SLe was cursing and said \u2018Do you not intend to pay me\u2019?, slie kept on from word to word and she said, \u2018You don\u2019t intend to pay it\u2019 and at that time site picked up a pepper sauce bottle, it was a fruit jar, and sLe drew it back. I said \u2018I Lave been awful nice to you, you Lave worn my tLings and 1 Lave given you show fare\u2019, and explained the nice tLings I Lad done .as nice as a person could. SLe said \u2018I don\u2019t give a damn, 1 don\u2019t care\u2019, she cursed and said \u2018I don\u2019t give a so-\u00e1nd-so, 1 am going to Lave my so-and-so money\u2019. While she was talking she set the pepper sauce bottle down and that is when X went and called Sonny (xreen. She meant business and she meant to do something to me and I went to call Sonny to call the police. I thought probably she would hit me with the jar while talking to the police and after 1 got Sonny up lie went in and tried to call the police and I taken advantage of it and when she went to the telephone where he was that is when I started around to get to the kitchen and she said \u2018you needn\u2019t get that gun\u2019. She said \u2018I am not afraid of you, and you are going to give me the . . . dollar and a half or I intend to get it\u2019 and she was coming down the counter to me. I had gone into the kitchen and was standing against the table and she said \u2018I mean you are going to give me the . . . money\u2019. I said \u2018I don\u2019t want to hurt you and I don\u2019t want you to hurt me\u2019. She said she was going to get the . . . money and I got the gun and pulled the trigger back and I said \u2018if you keep coming\u2019, and she said \u2018You yellow . . ., you ain\u2019t got the nerve to shoot me\u2019. I said \u2018I don\u2019t want to shoot you, but one thing T don\u2019t want you to hurt me\u2019. She continued on and after she got to the [ce cream she kept on coming as short as from me to that man. X said \u2018I am not trying to scare you, you had better not make another step\u2019, and I shot her, I meant to stop her I didn\u2019t mean to kill hoi\u2019.\u201d\nSeveral witnesses testified that Helen was quarrelsome and bore a bad reputation, and it ivas shown that appellant liad the reputation 'of being a peaceful and industrious woman.\nWhen the correctness of a verdict of guilty is being considered by us on appeal the testimony must be given its strongest probative force in favor of the state. Higgins v. State, 204 Ark. 233, 161 S. W. 2d 400. Applying this rule in appraising the testimony, we conclude that there was substantial evidence in this case upon which the jury might base a finding that appellant slew the deceased, not because of an honest belief that appellant, was in danger of being killed or receiving serious bodily injury, but because of sudden and irresistible anger aroused in appellant because of Helen\u2019s boisterous and offensive conduct. The jury evidently took this view of the testimony and it therefore properly found appellant guilty of voluntary manslaughter; and the reputation of the appellant was doubtless given due consideration by the jury in assessing the punishment.\nIt is next urged by appellant that the lower court erred in refusing to give appellant\u2019s requested instruction No. 4, which dealt with the matters of burden of proof and presumption of innocence. The court correctly gave the law as to this phase of the case in several instructions, particularly appellant\u2019s requested instructions Nos. 2, 3, 6-B, 8 and 11. We have often said that it is not necessary for the trial court to multiply instructions by repeating in substance the same declaration of law. Sweeney v. State, 35 Ark. 585; Carroll v. State, 45 Ark. 539; McCoy v. State, 46 Ark. 141; Lee v. State, 56 Ark. 4, 19 S. W. 16; Maxey v. State, 66 Ark. 523, 52 S. W. 2; Richardson v. State, 80 Ark. 201, 96 S. W. 752; Jones v. State, 105 Ark. 698, 152 S. W. 161; Moore v. State, 109 Ark. 475, 160 S. W. 206; McCown v. State, 125 Ark. 597, 188 S. W. 547; Burns v. State, 155 Ark. 1, 243 S. W. 963; Sutton v. State, 162 Ark. 438, 258 S. W. 632; Hicks v. State, 193 Ark. 46, 97 S. W. 2d 900; Lee v. State, 200 Ark. 964, 141 S. W. 2d 842; Herron v. State, 202 Ark. 927, 154 S. W. 2d 351;Bradshaw v. State, 206 Ark. 635, 176 S. W. 2d 912; Trotter v. State, 206 Ark. 690, 177 S. W. 2d 173.\nIt' is finally argued by appellant there was error in the refusal of the lower court t\u00f3 give appellant\u2019s requested instruction No. 12, defining appellant\u2019s right of self-defense; but we find that in instructions Nos. 9, 10, 10-A, and 13, given at the request of appellant, the court fully and properly charged the jury as to the law of self-defense.\nNo error appearing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "EobiNS, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ben M. McCray, for appellant.", "Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Earl N. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Griffin v. State.\n4417\n196 S. W. 2d 484\nOpinion delivered September 30, 1946.\nBen M. McCray, for appellant.\nGuy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Earl N. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0388-01", "first_page_order": 404, "last_page_order": 408 }