{ "id": 1646596, "name": "Watson v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Watson v. State", "decision_date": "1954-11-08", "docket_number": "4784", "first_page": "205", "last_page": "207", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "224 Ark. 205" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "272 S.W.2d 314" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "37 S. W. 2d 86", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ark. 1153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 S. W. 576", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 Ark. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720068 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/130/0333-01" ] }, { "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": "213 Ark. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1467106 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/213/0193-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 291, "char_count": 3726, "ocr_confidence": 0.525, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.06210651663475361 }, "sha256": "44b0590fab68e4e3da7e41ee41946e577de4a78d82f560a6e115f585a1b430e3", "simhash": "1:3beb96f74124cabb", "word_count": 635 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:52.725032+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Watson v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Robinson, J.\nAppellant was charged with assault with intent to kill, convicted of aggravated assault, and his punishment fixed at one year\u2019s imprisonment in the county jail and a fine of $1,000. There are two issues on appeal; first, it' is contended by appellant that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence that E. C. Bailey, the person on whom the assault was made, was ah habitual drinker and user of alcoholic liquors; second, it is contended that the punishment is excessive.\nAppellant Payton Watson and E. C. Bailey were employees of the Arkansas Western Gas Company. E. P. Bailey, brother of E. C. Bailey, was the drilling superintendent for the company. The superintendent, E. P. Bailey, discharged Watson, and on the following morning appellant Watson armed himself with a pistol and went to a little shack where the workmen changed their clothes and also kept some tools. E. C. Bailey was inside this little building, sitting on a tool box. Watson proceeded to challenge Bailey to.fight, cursed him in the vilest manner, said to him, \u201cThis is pay day,\u201d and continued to curse him for about five minutes. Bailey did not come out of the shack or get off the tool box where he was sitting. Thereupon Watson pulled his pistol. At that time Homer\u2018 Pettigrew stepped between Watson and Bailey, and Watson said, \u201cPop,-damn you, I would hate to kill you; get out of my way.\u201d Also someone made the remark, \u201cWatson, I wouldn\u2019t do this, I wouldn\u2019t talk like this and about doing a thing like this; remember Curly [Bailey] has a family\u201d; and Watson said, \u201cTo hell with his - damn family,\u201d and fired into the building. Witnesses testified that the gun was pointed in the direction of Bailey.. All of the evidence taken together would sustain a conviction for assault with intent to kill.\nAppellant Watson offered evidence to the effect that E. C. Bailey was an habitual user of alcoholic liquor. It is appellant\u2019s contention that E. C. Bailey had put pressure upon him to purchase whiskey for Bailey, by at least implying fha,t if Watson did not make such purchases Bailey would use his influence with his brother to have Watson discharged from his job; and further that evidence that Bailey was a chronic aleoholic would corroborate-Watson and such fact should be considered by the jury in mitigation of the punishment. It':is-'iproper to prove relevant facts in mitigation of punishment for an assault, but the evidence here offered was entirely too remote. Even if Bailey had pressured appellant into buying whiskey at some time in the past, it would not be such a circumstance as could be considered in mitigation of an aggravated assault.\nAppellant next maintains the punishment is excessive. The language of the court in Jutson and Winters v. State, 213 Ark. 193, 209 S. W. 2d 681, is applicable here. There the court said: \u201cAppellants also say the punishment is excessive. It was the peculiar province of the jury to weigh the testimony of the witnesses. If the jury believed the testimony of witnesses for the State,-appellants were guilty of a violent, unprovoked and inexcusable attack upon the prosecuting witness with a deadly weapon. While the punishment inflicted is severe, it is authorized by the statute . . . and this court will not, under the circumstances, reduce the punishment assessed by the jury. Hall v. State, 113 Ark. 454, 168 S. W. 1122 ; Daugherty v. State, 130 Ark. 333, 197 S. W. 576; Wagner v. State, 183 Ark. 1153, 37 S. W. 2d 86.\u201d\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Robinson, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Batchelor & Batchelor, Nelson H. Sadler and Mark E. Woolsey, for appellant.", "Tom Gentry, Attorney General, and Thorp Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Watson v. State.\n4784\n272 S. W. 2d 314\nOpinion delivered November 8, 1954.\nBatchelor & Batchelor, Nelson H. Sadler and Mark E. Woolsey, for appellant.\nTom Gentry, Attorney General, and Thorp Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0205-01", "first_page_order": 227, "last_page_order": 229 }