{ "id": 1604050, "name": "Ray Holland v. State of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Holland v. State", "decision_date": "1969-06-02", "docket_number": "5-5415", "first_page": "1119", "last_page": "1125", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "246 Ark. 1119" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "442 S.W.2d 218" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 726", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485047 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0726-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 Ark. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1642892 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/225/0602-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 661, "char_count": 11133, "ocr_confidence": 0.444, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.06012532004761668 }, "sha256": "c1e598556e0baca7bfb994d158f15535d0b4a9e78c3312ec22f41100c73fab9b", "simhash": "1:69d284429e7c8f18", "word_count": 1994 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:17.719304+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Ray Holland v. State of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice.\nThis is an appeal by Ray Holland from his conviction of the crime of assault with intent to kill. Holland was found guilty by the Washington County Circuit Court, sitting as a jury, and his punishment fixed at five years in the State Penitentiary. The court further ordered that pronouncement of three years of this five-year sentence be deferred upon the good behavior of the appellant. Six points are urged for reversal, but we can only consider one, the sufficiency of the evidence, since none of the other alleged errors were set out in the motion for new trial. We do not consider asserted errors not preserved in the motion for new trial. Hardin v. State, 225 Ark. 602, 284 S.W. 2d 111.\nThe testimony reflects that appellant and his wife, Hazel, were divorced in October, 3967, the wife receiving custody of the minor son, 10 years of age. In March, 1968, Hazel married Kenneth Cecil Lawson, and the parties lived in Fayetteville. Mrs. Lawson testified that a restraining order had been issued against Holland, restraining him from coming about the Lawson home, but on the morning of October 10, 3968, around 9:30 or 10:00 A.M., she saw her ex-husband standing in the street, taking the license numbers of her automobile and her husband\u2019s pickup truck. She inquired as to the reason for his presence, and he replied, \u201cGo ahead and call the police.\u201d Mrs. Lawson announced that that was exactly what she intended to do, and asked Holland what he was going to do, appellant replying, \u201cA damned plenty.\u201d Holland left, and Mrs. Lawson said that soon thereafter, her husband also left to take her car to the garage, something being wrong with the transmission. The witness stated that she, after thinking over Holland\u2019s actions in taking the license numbers, left the house (in the pickup truck) for the purpose of going to police headquarters. However, she observed the Lawson automobile stopped on 15th Street, and also saw Ray Holland turning his car around, and coming back in her direction. She parked the pickup behind the Lawson automobile, and saw Mr. Lawson lying on the ground, \u201cjust as bloody as he could be all over.\u201d .She did not see the encounter.\nHershel Rogers testified that, on the morning of October 10, as he pulled out of Wal-Mart, and headed east on loth Street, he observed two cars stopping about 200 yards ahead. Upon getting closer, he saw the occupant of the front car, a 1959 Mercury, get out of his vehicle, and go around to the back car, a red Ford, the occupant of that automobile being in the act of getting out of his car, and the two went into a \u201cclinch.\u201d According to the witness, this occurred about at the opening of the Ford door on the driver\u2019s side. The two automobiles were about 60 feet apart. Rogers stopped his automobile, and observed the fight. One man (Lawson) seemed to be getting the worst of the fight, and broke away. Rogers then observed that this man, who ran west from the scene about 200 feet, had bloody spots over his clothes. The witness left to call the officers.\nGrlenn Riggins, criminal investigator on the police force of Fayetteville, testified that a call was received about the occurrence, and officers started to the scene, but before arriving there, received a radio message that Holland was already at the station. They returned, and, according to Riggins, another officer, Richard Wells, advised Holland of his constitutional rights by reading from a waiver. Holland then admitted that he had cut Lawson with a knife, and a pocket knife was taken from appellant, which appeared to have blood stains on it.\nKenneth Lawson testified, as follows:\n\u201cI started out to see about my car and I seen his car in front of me. He pulled over and stopped and I stopped. I was going to ask him \u2014 now, I didn\u2019t know Mr. Holland personally but I did recognize the car and the car had been following me on previous occasions. When I\u2019d take the kids to school, when I\u2019d be going to and from work, and I wanted to know'- why. I stopped to ask him why. I didn\u2019t get a chance to say a word. He come out of his car and he said, \u2018You son-of-a-bitch, you\u2019ve caused me enough trouble. I\u2019m going to kill you.\u2019 Aud he come out with a knife.\u201d\nThe witness said that he liad no weapon of any sort, but was finally able to break away from appellant. He denied that he left his house to \u201cgo out after Holland.\u201d\nDr. John W. Vinzant, of Fayetteville, testified relative to the wounds received by Lawson, as follows:\n\u201cThe man had sustained several knife wounds and had a blood pressure at that time of around eighty systolic with shock. * * * He had seven stab wounds over the shoulder, the thorax above the belt. Two of these wounds were severe, the others were minor. One penetrated the thoracic cage on the left. * * * Out a rib in two, went through the diaphragm and lacerated the liver.\u201d\nThe doctor testified that the wounds indicated the application of considerable force; that the 'wound caused by the blow that cut the rib in two was 3 or 3% inches long, and approximately 2 inches deep. \u201cIt went clear through the thoracic wall.\u201d The witness said all seven wounds required stitches to be closed, aud he stated that Lawson was in serious condition when he (Vinzant) saw him. The doctor testified that Lawson had a collapsed lung,\u201d and remained in the hospital for nine days; further, that the liver was also cut, and Vinzant described a particular wound over the heart, which he found to be serious, as follows:\n\u201cDirectly over it [the heart] and into the thoracic cage. Again, the lung could have collapsed hut for some reason, it didn\u2019t, on that side.\u201d\nMore specifically describing this wound, the witness said:\n\u2018 \u2018 This wound was approximately two and a half inches in length, it went laterally or in a circle around the body between the ribs. It went completely through the chest wall which would be about the same thickness as the other one, around two inches, and you could explore it with your fingers and touch the heart and lung.\u201d\nHolland testified that he was copying the license numbers because he understood that one of the vehicles was registered in the name of Holland, and he was \u2018 \u2018 curious.\u201d He said:\n\u201cWell, Hazel came rushing out of the house there and commenced to throw one of her usual hissies. * * * \u2018What are you doing out here bothering us ? Why don\u2019t you go away and let us alone?\u2019 * * * I just went on and let them alone. I had the numbers that I wanted.\u201d\nHolland said that he knew someone was following him, and he was suspicious that it was Lawson; the car behind caught up with him at a stop light, and followed him \u201cbumper to bumper\u201d to where appellant stopped his automobile. The record reflects the following:\n\u201cWell, I got out to see what was going on and he jumped out of his car and he was messing around there behind the door of his car. I thought he was coming out with a pipe or a tire tool.\nQ. Then what occurred?\nA. Well, T pulled my knife out and waded in on him.\u201d\nHe said they \u201ccame together,\u201d and Lawson struck him, and \u201cthat\u2019s when I went to work [meaning that he used his knife].\u201d When asked if he held any ill will toward Lawson, lie said, \u201cNot a thing only over unchildren. I want to see those children.\u201d Appellant said that Lawson had no weapon, \u201cbut I thought he would have.\u201d He stated that, if he had wanted to kill Lawson, he could have done so, but he was only interested in \u201cgetting him away from me.\u201d\nOf course, the court, sitting as a jury, was the. fact-finder, and it apparently did not believe Holland acted in self-defense. In Davis v. Diate, 206 Ark. 726, 177 S.W. 2d 190, we said:\n\u201cAlthough 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 manner 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 property consider the character of the weapon employed and the way it was used, the manner of 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 of the defendant, if any; and all other facts and circumstances tending to reveal defendant\u2019s state of mind.\u201d\nCertainly, there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. Holland was the first to stop his automobile, and he immediately pulled his knife, though the evidence clearly shows that Lawson was unarmed. Without making any effort to ascertain whether the prosecuting witness had any sort of weapon, appellant, according to his own words, \u201cpulled my knife out and waded in on him.\u201d The number of times appellant struck Lawson with the knife, and the severity of the wounds are clear indications that Holland had the intent to kill. In fact, it seems rather remarkable that Lawson did not die, having a rib cut in two, the diaphragm completely penetrated, a lacerated liver, a collapsed lung, and the knife going so completely through the chest wall that the doctor testified that the heart and lung could be touched by the finger. The evidence is more than ample to support the judgment.\nAffirmed.\nThis waiver contained all of the so-called Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).\nHolland made a statement at the station, but the court did not admit it into evidence, as it was unsigned.\nThe cloctor explained this as \u201cthe lung, into the lung cavity.\u201d\nThe reference \u201cchildren\u201d included the two daughters of Mrs. Lawson by an earlier marriage, these children having been adopted by appellant during his marriage to the present Mrs. Lawson.\nFrom the record: \u201cQ. Then when you get down to the jail, you asked somebody, you said, \u2018Is that bird dead yet?\u2019 Some o\u00ed the police officers? Didn\u2019t you? The Court: Did you say that? A. I don\u2019t recall saying that in that particular way. Mr. Coxsey: Just a moment. Q. To Riggins and Hutchens, and this young man, Wells? I\u2019ll ask you if you didn\u2019t say this, or this in substance, \u2018Is that bird dead yet?\u2019 A. I don\u2019t recall saying it in that \u2014 . Q. How did you say it? A. I really don\u2019t recall the exact words. Q. The fact is that you expected him to die and you asked him if he wasn\u2019t dead yet, and you said \u2018That bird,\u2019 now didn\u2019t you, Ray? A. I am not going to^ admit to that, Ted, because I don\u2019t think I said it. Q. Are you going to deny it? A. I can\u2019t very well deny it but I am still not going to admit that I said it. Now, if Mr. Wells says I did, I\u2019m not going to argue with him.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Murphy & Carlisle for appellant.", "Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen.; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen.; Jerry D. Pinson, Asst. Atty. Gen. for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ray Holland v. State of Arkansas\n5-5415\n442 S.W. 2d 218\nOpinion Delivered June 2, 1969\n[Rehearing denied July 14, 1969.]\nMurphy & Carlisle for appellant.\nJoe Purcell, Atty. Gen.; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen.; Jerry D. Pinson, Asst. Atty. Gen. for appellee." }, "file_name": "1119-01", "first_page_order": 1151, "last_page_order": 1157 }