{ "id": 1727630, "name": "Farrar v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Farrar v. State", "decision_date": "1966-03-14", "docket_number": "5191", "first_page": "447", "last_page": "451", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "240 Ark. 447" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "400 S.W.2d 289" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "206 Ark. 726", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485047 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0726-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 493, "char_count": 7254, "ocr_confidence": 0.504, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0020921925686762e-07, "percentile": 0.5391787320419067 }, "sha256": "bd1bac630c63675aee252a90f7de2aa40b2d2059e534454ae3995380be376565", "simhash": "1:d207049ccbd6db44", "word_count": 1245 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:15.698686+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Farrar v. State" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice.\nRobert Farrar, appellant herein, shot Laurence Staudt on May 4, 1965, and was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to kill. Punishment was fixed at three years imprisonment, and from the judgment so entered, appellant brings this appeal.\nIt is first asserted that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence, but we do not agree. The proof reflects that the two men owned adjoining farms, and that, during the day, they had \u201cwords\u201d over a drainage problem occasioned by Staudt\u2019s rice water draining off through Farrar\u2019s property. According to Staudt, appellant said, \u201cI have got a wa.y of stopping this.\u201d Both men were drinking during the day. Subsequently, Staudt testified that Farrar asked him to drive him over to the house, and Staudt complied, telling an employee, Gerald Goodwin, to follow them over to Farrar\u2019s home. The prosecuting witness stated that after they had arrived, he (Staudt) told Farrar that the latter needed to sleep for several hours, and suggested that he drink a can of beer. Appellant told the witness that there was a can in the refrigerator, and Staudt opened the refrigerator door, squatted, and took the can of beer out. On hearing a click behind him, he turned his head, and saw that Farrar had a shotgun leveled at him. \u201cHad it pointed right in my face, when I saw it I pushed up, instead of hitting me in the head, hit me, shot me in the abdomen.\u201d The witness said that Farrar was about eight feet away when he fired the gun. According to his evidence, he had no weapon of any kind, had not fought with Farrar, and had done nothing to the appellant. Counsel argues that appellant was too drunk to form an intent to kill; further, that there was no evidence to explain why the shot was fired, and that the two men had not even had sufficient trouble to cause a fist fight. These arguments are contrary to the proof. As for motive, the jury could well have found that Farrar was extremely angry over the fact that Staudt was again going to plant the field adjoining his (Farrar\u2019s) property in rice, and the testimony reflects that he twice said, \u201cI know a way of stopping it.\u201d Staudt\u2019s testimony related other remarks made hy Farrar on the way to the house, which indicated anger. While both men were drinking, it certainly was not established that Farrar was too drunk to form an intent to kill. In fact, appellant vigorously denied drunkenness, and detailed his version of all that had happened during the day up until the shooting. Farrar stated that after Staudt -had made some belligerent remarks, including, \u201cNo two bit farmer is going to stand in my way,\u201d he grabbed appellant around the neck, and said, \u2018 \u2018 Stay away from that woman or I am going to break your damn neck; \u201d he broke away, and Staudt turned, went into the kitchen, and then started hack. Appellant said he saw something in Staudt\u2019s hand, and he grabbed his gun, which was standing by the roll-aAvay bed. Farrar stated that the gun accidentally discharged. Accordingly, it seems that he somewhat combines two defenses, self-defense, and accidental shooting. Staudt was taken to the hospital hy Goodwin, who had remained on the outside.\nSheriff Lonnie Cooper testified that Farrar did not mention any weapon held hy the victim, and had said that there had not been any trouble. Dr. Paul Stroud, a physician of Jonesboro, who was present at the hospital when Staudt was taken there, testified that he found \u201ca wound in the omentum, which is a fat pad over the intestines, protruding over here in the abdomen and some loops, some of the intestines were protruding through.\u201d The doctor performed surgery, and found that the abdominal wall was damaged; that the shot and wadding-had lodged under the sacrum hone at the lower part of the abdomen and the bladder; the bladder was shredded and \u201ctorn up extensively.\u201d Puncture wounds were also discovered in the large bowel, and a portion was removed. Small parts of the bladder were also removed. Dr. Stroud testified that the shot could have killed Staudt.\nIt was within the province of the jury to determine the true facts in the case, and certainly, there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. The facts and circumstances of the assault, as related by Staudt, indicated an intention by Farrar to kill the prosecuting witness, or to cause great bodily harm. The weapon used, a 12-gauge shotgun, and the extent of wounds on the body, together with the state of feeling existing between the parties prior to the difficulty, were all matters to be considered by the jury. Davis v. State, 206 Ark. 726, 177 S. W. 2d 190.\nIt is next contended that the court erred in permitting the state to introduce the shirt, pants, and underwear that had been worn by Staudt at the time of the assault. In a long line of cases, we have held that the introduction of these items, and others similar thereto, is within the sound discretion of the court, and certainly this evidence was helpful in indicating to the jury the location of the wounds, and was clearly relevant to the issue being tried.\nIt is also urged that the court erred in permitting Dr. Stroud to testify as to the nature of the wounds. Of course, the location of the wounds, and evidence relating to whether such wounds could have caused death are most pertinent to the charge of assault with intent to kill, and the testimony also could assist the jury in determining which version of the shooting was correct.\nIt is not exactly clear just what'is meant, by the last point raised by appellant. He calls it \u201cimpeachment of defendant.\u201d The appellant offered three character witnesses, who testified as to his general good character. The state questioned two of these witnesses relative to whether they had knowledge of a fight appellant engaged in at the Boot Heel Cafe. Their answer was in the negative, bnt at any rate, there was no objection to the testimony at all. The state then called as a witness Willie Q-. Brown, brother-in-law of appellant. In making inquiry as to Farrar\u2019s reputation in the community, Brown was asked as to appellant\u2019s reputation for sobriety. The answer Avas, \u201cWell, to my knowing, Booth [appellant] has drank right smart. * * * I Avould call him an alcoholic.\u201d Counsel for appellant objected, and the court sustained the objection. The witness subsequently said that he Avas not familiar Avith the general reputation of Farrar in the community. Of course, the objection was sustained, and the court accordingly disallowed the testimony, though had it been otherwise, the testimony Avould seem to have tied in Avith appellant\u2019s defense, heretofore mentioned, that Farrar Avas too drunk at the time of the shooting to form an intent to kill.\nFinding no reversible error, and it appearing that appellant received a fair trial, the judgment is affirmed.\nAppellant took this remark to refer to the drainage dispute.\nFarrar stated that the reason he kept the gun loaded was \u201con account of dogs getting in the geese.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Bon McCourtney, Claude B. Brinton and Scott Hunter, for appellant.", "Bruce Bemiett, Atty. General; Fletcher Jackson, Asst. Atty. General, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Farrar v. State\n5191\n400 S. W. 2d 289\nOpinion delivered March 14, 1966\n[Rehearing denied April 4, 1966.]\nBon McCourtney, Claude B. Brinton and Scott Hunter, for appellant.\nBruce Bemiett, Atty. General; Fletcher Jackson, Asst. Atty. General, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0447-01", "first_page_order": 471, "last_page_order": 475 }