{
  "id": 1609148,
  "name": "Hays v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hays v. State",
  "decision_date": "1951-07-09",
  "docket_number": "4660",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "303",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "219 Ark. 301"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "241 S.W.2d 266"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "222 S. W. 2d 816",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 Ark. 618",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1464757
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/215/0618-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S. W. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ark. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1312211
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/100/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S. W. 1123",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721785
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/74/0397-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 S. W. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 Ark. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1367926
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/150/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S. W. 773",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 Ark. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1536291
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/114/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S. W. 1124",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ark. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1312254
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/100/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 Ark. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720786
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/214/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 Ark. 693",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1485147
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/206/0693-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 S. W. 2d 909",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Ark. 928",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1396992
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/178/0928-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 S. W. 1016",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 Ark. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1532271
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/116/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 S. W. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 Ark. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1519130
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/87/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S. W. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722278
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/74/0444-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 367,
    "char_count": 4643,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6789304702087766e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8265033984606824
    },
    "sha256": "4d4a14af7a36bc98906fe4f4ff93a7e8072acab11f21ac7066a91abbde60f5c8",
    "simhash": "1:23ef7a0d737f46ee",
    "word_count": 824
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:55.172495+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hays v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holt, J.\nA jury convicted appellant, Fred Hays, of involuntary manslaughter and assessed his punishment at a term of two years in the State Penitentiary. From the judgment is this appeal.\nFor reversal, appellant alleged (1) that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict, and (2) that \u201cthe court failed to instruct the jury generally on matters of law.\u201d Both of these contentions are without merit.\n(1)\nA number of Negroes, including Buster Jordan, had gathered at appellant\u2019s home for the purpose of gambling with dice. A dispute arose between appellant and Jordan and Jordan left and in about five or ten minutes returned with a loaded shotgun. He knocked on appellant\u2019s door and appellant\u2019s wife admitted him.\nWitness, John Hodges, testified that when Jordan came in, he said: \u201cI came back to kill Fred (appellant), but I done changed my mind now,\u201d that he handed his gun to Fred\u2019s'wife who deposited it in another room, that Jordan \u201cleaned against the furniture and he and Fred started a conversation. \u2019 \u2019 \u25a0 Fred was standing in a closet (or bathroom) at the time, that Fred said: \u201c \u2018Did you really mean to idll me, Buster?\u2019 and he said, \u2018Yes, I did, but I changed my mind and I am ready to have some fun. \u2019 Q. Had Fred raised the gun and pointed it at Buster? A. Yes, but he put it back down. Q. When Fred said that, he again raised the gun and pointed it at Buster? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did Fred say? A. I don\u2019t remember him saying nothing\u2014he shot..\u2019 \u2019\nShortly thereafter, Buster died as a result of the gunshot wound inflict\u00e9d by appellant.\nWithout detailing more of the testimony, we hold that it was substantial and amply warranted the jury\u2019s verdict. .\n(2)\nThe record reflects that there were no objections or exceptions to any of the instructions given by the court. It is only fair to say, however, that appellant\u2019s attorney here did not participate in the trial of the case below.\n. Upon a review of all the instructions, .it appears that the court fully and clearly declared the applicable law to the case.\nThe jury was correctly instructed on the various degrees of homicide,\u2014murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and manslaughter. The court also clearly defined and explained to the jury the law of self defense and when it may be exercised.\nHowever, as indicated, the record reflects that there were no objections or exceptions to any of the instructions given on the trial, therefore, appellant cannot now complain of any alleged errors. \u201c \u2018It is well settled that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point unless a correct instruction on that point is asked. Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444, 86 S. W. 409; Horton v. Jackson, 87 Ark. 528, 113 S. W. 45; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260, 170 S. W. 1016.\u2019\n\u201cIn the case of Lowmack v. Slate, 178 Ark. 928, 12 S. W. 2d 909, it was held (headnote 6): \u2018Where accused desired an instruction on a particular issue not covered by the instructions given, he should request a correct instruction thereon.\u2019 \u201d Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693, 177 S. W. 2d 933. See Cellars v. State, 214 Ark. 326, 216 S. W. 2d 47.\nAppellant also argues that the trial court erred in permitting counsel for the State to elicit from appellant admissions on cross-examination that he had been convicted of various misdemeanors, gambling, immorality, drinking in a public place, and possessing untaxed liquor.\nUnder proper instructions, this testimony was allowed to go to the jury solely as to the effect it might have on appellant\u2019s credibility as a witness. This was proper.\n\u201cNeither was error committed by the court in permitting appellant to be asked, on cross-examination, while testifying in his own behalf, if he had not been convicted for disturbing the peace. Turner v. State, 100 Ark. 199, 139 S. W. 1124; Hunt v. State, 114 Ark. 239, 169 S. W. 773, L. R. A. 1915B, 131; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928, 12 S. W. 2d 909, and \u201cThere was testimony also that appellant had been fined for the commission of certain misdemeanors, one for drunken driving. This testimony was admitted and limited to the consideration of appellant\u2019s veracity as a witness, and was admissible for that purpose. Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928, 12 S. W. 2d 909; Shinn v. State, 150 Ark. 215, 234 S. W. 636; Smith v. State, 74 Ark. 397, 85 S. W. 1123; Younger v. State, 100 Ark. 321, 140 S. W. 139;\u201d Black v. State, 215 Ark. 618, 222 S. W. 2d 816.\nFinding no -error, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. B. Dodds, for appellant.",
      "Ike Murry, Attorney General, and Arnold Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hays v. State.\n4660\n241 S. W. 2d 266\nOpinion delivered July 9, 1951.\nJ. B. Dodds, for appellant.\nIke Murry, Attorney General, and Arnold Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 325,
  "last_page_order": 327
}