{ "id": 1597700, "name": "Elgin MARTIN v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. State", "decision_date": "1970-03-09", "docket_number": "5455", "first_page": "188", "last_page": "195", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "248 Ark. 188" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "451 S.W.2d 453" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "232 S. W. 437", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 Ark. 324", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719557 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/149/0324-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S. W. 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 Ark. 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1913344 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/52/0303-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 716, "char_count": 13300, "ocr_confidence": 0.814, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08, "percentile": 0.31782393490894645 }, "sha256": "212c31d68229c927f7d76cac95beaa01849a8a88ada984cb75d3c8a43edc70c7", "simhash": "1:bfc276553cc4e8b2", "word_count": 2389 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:57.001151+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Elgin MARTIN v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice.\nElgin Martin was charged with the murder of his son, James Guice Martin, the killing occurring on December 8, 1968. On trial, Martin was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and sentenced to three years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. From the judgment so entered, appellant brings this appeal. For reversal, it is urged that the testimony was insufficient to sustain a conviction, and that the court erred in permitting the state to introduce alleged threats of Martin toward his son, the first, occurring 10 years before the homicide, and the second, occurring about 9 months before this event.\nThe evidence reflects that, on Sunday evening, December 8, 1968, James Guice Martin and an occasional employee, James Lewis, were at Martin\u2019s shop, located 4 or 5 miles from Wilmar. Late Sunday afternoon appellant went to the shop to see about borrowing young Martin\u2019s tractor to pull a dead mule away from the older man\u2019s premises. The elder Martin asked if he could use the tractor, and was told that he could. Guice and Lewis then went back to Wilmar, Lewis getting out at the washateria. Lewis testified that there were no angry words between the Martins before leaving, but that on the way back to town, Guice Martin said that he was going back and \u201cget things straight.\u201d Appellant testified that, after his son told him he could use the tractor, he left, and walked back to his home, about 500 or 600 yards from the shop, to feed his dogs. While he was so engaged, Guice drove up in his truck, got out, and said, \u201cI\u2019ve got a little deal for you. You\u2019ve been lying to me long enough about that tractor.\u201d He said that the son cursed him, grabbed him by the coat, jerked him around, and said, \u201cYou stand up here, ..I\u2019m going to do the talking and you\u2019re going to do the listening.\u201d According to appellant, he was then hit in the 'mouth and knocked down. He further stated that Guice then said, \u201cI\u2019m going to finish you once and for all,\u201d and started back to his truck. It was dark and appellant testified that he (appellant) then ran to his own truck, obtained a shotgun, and \u201csquatted down. He stood there with his flashlight hunting me.\u201d Martin said that he ran east for a short distance, then north over to a road, through another field, and stopped in a lane, traveling in all about a quarter of a mile. \u201cJust as I stopped a flashlight ca^ne on behind .me. It was on and off. I just wheeled around and shot.\u201d The shot was fired with a 12-gauge automatic shotgun, loaded with No. 6 shot. According to officers who shortly thereafter investigated the shooting, Guice was shot in the face and chest, and was lying on his back with\" a flashlight beside his left hand. The light was not on. There was no evidence of a struggle, and no weapon was found. The testimony reflected that the shot was fired at a distance of about BO feet, and one of the officers testified that the deceased was struck by at least 150 No. 6 shot, though only one shell was fired. A written statement was subsequently given by Martin to the officers.\nAppellant stated that, after his son struck him, and started back toward the truck, he (appellant) thought that Guice was going after a gun, \u201cbecause he always carried a gun in his truck.\u201d Appellant\u2019s testimony \u2022 and the statement first made to the officers, differed in one important respect, viz., in the statement, appellant said that, when he fired the shotgun, he did not know who was flashing the light. On trial, he testified that he knew Guice was the person with the flashlight. After the shooting, appellant did not investigate to see whether he had hit the son, but instead, went to his daughter\u2019s home, and no one being present, went about two miles to the home of Dale Avery, and told Avery and his wife that he thought he had shot G\u00faice, but \u201cGo see if I hit him or not.\u201d\nOf course, there were no witnesses to the shooting, \u2022bther than appellant himself, but there was certainly evidence to clearly indicate to the jury that the shooting was unnecessary, and not done in self-defense. In the first place, it was established that Guice Martin was not armed, for there was no weapon by the body when the officers arrived on the scene. A search of Guice Martin\u2019s home revealed that the three guns that he owned were all in the house, and there was no gun in his truck. In fact, it was clear from the testimony of appellant himself that he was the only one who endeavored to obtain a weapon. Appellant said that he started to get his knive hut of his pocket, and that was when'- he was struck by Guice. \u201cThis had happened before, I had bluffed him'before with my knife and I was going to, try to do it again.\u201d Admittedly, he did not warn his son that he had the gun and not to come closer, and when asked why he didn\u2019t shoot the son in the legs, instead of the face, replied, \u201cI j\u00fcst shot. I didn\u2019t even know it was oh him. I just shot to scare him to get on out of the way:\u201d Appellant himself earlier testified, \u201cF just feel like it shouldn\u2019t have ever happened,-wasn\u2019t no use of it.\u201d The testimony was ample to sustain the conviction, and, in fact, coupled with evidence of threats, hereinafter discussed, would have sustained the charge of murder.\nAs to the second point, Robert H. Martin, 27 years of age, son of appellant and brother of the deceased, testified that, in 1958, when he was 16 or 17 years of age, and Guice was 23 or 24, he heard his father threaten to kill Guice in Wilniar while they were standing in front of the bank:\n\u201cWell, he was behind on the alimony and we walked up to him and Guice asked him did he have any money for mother. He said, 'You want if, you come get it,\u2019 and pulled his knife.\u201d\nHe stated that nothing further happened, and he and Guice went on about their business.\nCre\u00f3la Reynolds, 32 years of age, daughter of Elgin Martin and sister of the deceased, married, and with two daughters, testified that she lived about 400 yards from her father, and that he had visited with her and eaten supper in her home many times. When asked if appellant Was having any trouble' with Guice, she replied, \u201cAs far as I knew, everything was OK at times.\u201d She stated, however; that, about 9 or' 10 months before the killing, while in her home, he said, \u201cIf that s \u2014 of-a-b--ever lays a. hand bn me, I\u2019ll kill him.\u201d When asked if she thought he was serious, she replied:\n\u201cI didn\u2019t know. In my own feeling, the way I felt, in a way I did. I\u2019d get nervous, because I\u2019ve heard that threatening remark many many times.\u201d\nThe daughter also testified that she was present on the occasion of an argument relating to her father\u2019s agreement to give Guice 11 or 12 acres of his land located near the younger Martin\u2019s shop. Her brother was getting ready to leave for a job away from home, and he wanted to get the deed before he left:\n\u201cI was picking strawberries, me and my children. Guice came up and asked him would he have maybe 30 minutes time that morning, being that it had rained and the ground was wet, to go sign and have the papers notarized. He had everything fixed to have them signed and notarized that next morning. He was going to come pick him up and bring him to have them notarized and carry him back. He said, \u2018You won\u2019t lose over 30 minutes work.\u2019 He told him, \u2018Hell no, I don\u2019t have time:\u2019 That\u2019s all I heard.\u201d\nShe testified, however, that in the early part of November, at the beginning of the first deer season, her father, Guice, and a man named Mercer were up at the shop engaged in target practice with Guice\u2019s, gun, all firing the gun, and it \u201clooked like everything was just as calm and peaceful as could be.\u201d She also said that, after the death of one of the brothers who was apparently close to his father (and had been killed in an accident), the children told him they would help him as best they could.\nCade Reynolds, husband of Cre\u00f3la, corroborated the testimony of his wife, relative to appellant\u2019s threat to kill Guice; he also said that Martin added that he should have done it a long time ago.\nMartin admitted the altercation with his son in Wilmar in 1958, stating that Guice had walked up and \u201csaid he was going to beat hell out of me,\u201d and that he (appellant) had reached in his pocket to get his knife, and told Guice to go on, as he didn\u2019t want any trouble. He also admitted the argument with Guice about fixing up the deed, but denied making the threat testified to by Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds.\nAppellant argues that the court erred in admitting the testimony about the threats, and he relies on our case of Billings v. State, 52 Ark. 303, 12 S. W. 574. There, the widow of the deceased was permitted to detail the particulars of a difficulty between the deceased and the killer about 2Yz years prior to the killing, and was further permitted to testify about a conversation with appellant 2 years before. These facts are set out in the opinion, as follows:\n\u201c* * # Her testimony was substantially, that at a picnic her husband and one Wilson had a fight; that a few moments after the fight her husband said to one Bostic that he had knocked his brother-in-law, meaning Bostic, down. That appellant, who heard the remark, ran up with a drawn knife, and said, \u2018If it\u2019s brothers-in-law you are after, I am here,\u2019 coupled with curses and oaths, at the same time striking at him with the knife. As to the conversation of the appellant with her, she testified, that he wanted to buy her interest in their father\u2019s estate. That she offered to sell for cash, which he could not pay; that she refused to sell on credit. That he then said he would have the land or some man\u2019s hide.\u201d\nBillings was convicted of manslaughter, and this court reversed because of the admission of this testimony, stating, inter alia that the conversation of appellant with Mrs. Wallace was ambiguous, if not appearing to whom he intended his threat to apply, and that in view of all the facts, including lapse of time, and no recurring trouble, the testimony was inadmissible. The court specifically stated that it is impossible to say how far back, with respect to time, such testimony would be admissible. A strong argument can be made that the testimony of the threat made 9 or 10 months before the homicide was admissible, and even that the threat 10 years before was admissible, these occurrences tending to show malice. It will be recalled that appellant, in reaching for his knife on the night that he killed the son, mentioned that he had \u201cbluffed\u201d young Martin before with the knife, this apparently being a reference to the occurrence 10 years before.\nLikewise, the daughter, in testifying about the threat made to kill Guice, said, \u201cI\u2019ve heard that threatening remark many many times.\u201d Her husband also testified that the father, in threatening to kill Guice, had said that he should have done it a long time ago. It thus appears that, throughout the 10-year period, there may have well been a feeling of animosity on the part of appellant toward this son. However, we need not pass upon this evidence for the reason that it is not deemed prejudicial under the verdict reached by the jury. In Witham v. State, 149 Ark. 324, 232 S. W. 437, in rejecting the argument here advanced, this court stated:\n\u201cAppellant next insists that the court erred in permitting Mart Kelt to testify, in substance, that, some six years before the killing, he heard accused say he grudged deceased the ownership of the land, and that some day, in some way, he would acquire it himself. This evidence only tended to establish a motive -for the killing. Any prejudice resulting from the admission of this1 evidence was eliminated by appellant\u2019s \u00e1cquittal of murder in either the first or second degree, because motive was not an ingredient of the crime of manslaughter, for which he was convicted, and was. a necessary ingredient of the crimes of which he was acquitted.\u201d\nOf course, Billings was also convicted of manslaughter, but it is obvious that the threats made in this instance were specific, and somewhat repetitious, a fact not true in Billings. However, even if the cases are considered as being in total conflict, we might point out that Billings was handed down in 1889, while the opinion in Witham was rendered in 1921. Aside from that, the last holding seems much more logical, and we think the quoted language is apropos in the present case. After all, it could hardly be argued that the jury demonstrated passion or prejudice in giving appellant a sentence of three years for killing his son.\nWe find no reversible error.\nAffirmed.\nTestimony reflected that appellant was advised of his constitutional rights, and signed a waiver, and there is no contention here that the statement was not voluntarily given.\nThe deed, sometime subsequent thereto, was executed.\nAppellant also testified that, when this son was killed, Guice and Robert went to the brother\u2019s home, asked him to come outside, and said, \u201cWhat\u2019s done happened, let it be happened, we're going to be better from now on.\u201d\nIf not a reference to that occasion, then yet another time, the two had had trouble.", "type": "majority", "author": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas L. Cashion, for appellant.", "Joe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Elgin MARTIN v. STATE of Arkansas\n5455\n451 S. W. 2d 453\nOpinion delivered March 9, 1970\n[Rehearing denied April 13, 1970.]\nThomas L. Cashion, for appellant.\nJoe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0188-01", "first_page_order": 210, "last_page_order": 217 }