{
  "id": 1675911,
  "name": "Charles Parker HARRIS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harris v. State",
  "decision_date": "1978-01-23",
  "docket_number": "CR 77-195",
  "first_page": "680",
  "last_page": "683",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 Ark. 680"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "561 S.W.2d 69"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "550 S.W. 2d 776",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678856
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0683-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 816",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678901
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0816-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 Ark. 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1619199
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/259/0590-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 301,
    "char_count": 4276,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.909,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.304160009538385e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9424252147519026
    },
    "sha256": "f96ebd7d1f87fed7b355e9e52ff86dd7edc86574dbc09961420689be99c23f09",
    "simhash": "1:a7fefe1b0df632cc",
    "word_count": 719
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:42.068781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C J., and Fogleman and Byrd, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Parker HARRIS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree and his punishment assessed at ten years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in submitting the case to the jury on a higher form of homicide than manslaughter or negligent homicide and in not directing a verdict in his favor on the higher form of homicide because there was no substantial evidence to support the jury\u2019s verdict. Appellant argues that to constitute murder in the second degree, as defined by Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1503 (1) (b) (Repl. 1977), there must be proof of an intent to kill, which appellant asserts the state failed to prove. \u00a7 41-1503 (1) (b) reads that a person commits murder in the second degree if \u201che knowingly causes the death of another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.\u201d The culpable mental state required for second degree murder, as defined by \u00a7 41-1503 (1) (b), is not an intent to kill, but rather is to \u201cknowingly\u201d cause such result. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-203 (2) defines \u201cknowingly:\u201d\nA person acts knowingly with respect to his conduct or the attendant circumstances when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.\nTherefore, here the state, in order to prove appellant committed second degree murder under \u00a7 41-1503 (1) (b), had to prove that appellant acted with an awareness of his conduct, the relevant attendant circumstances, and that his conduct was practically certain to cause the death of his wife.\nA directed verdict is proper only when no fact issue exists and on appeal we review the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. Balentine v. State, 259 Ark. 590, 535 S.W. 2d 221 (1976). Here there was testimony that appellant entered a bar with his wife and sat down in a booth, his wife sitting right next to him. Appellant was seen holding a gun pointed at his wife\u2019s throat. She reached for his hand and laid hers upon his at which time the gun fired killing her. Immediately before the shot was fired, appellant was heard to say to her, \u201cWell, I\u2019ll fix you.\u201d However, appellant adduced evidence from those present that there was no argument and he was engaged in \u201chorseplay.\u201d His version was that the incident was accidental. It was for the jury to resolve the conflicting versions. The evidence is amply substantial to support the jury\u2019s verdict that appellant \u201cknowingly\u201d caused his wife\u2019s death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Accordingly, there was no error in the court\u2019s failure to direct a verdict in appellant\u2019s favor.\nAppellant finally contends that the court erred in accepting the jury\u2019s verdict because it was ambiguous and denied him his right to the alternative fine provision contained in the written verdict form. The verdict form, in accordance with the court\u2019s instruction, reads:\nWe, the Jury, find the defendant, Charles Parker Harris, guilty of Murder, Second Degree, as charged in the Information, and fix his punishment at a sentence of _ imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, and/or a fine of_Dollars.\nThe jury inserted \u201c10 YRS\u201d and \u201c$5,000\u201d as punishment. The court clerk inadvertently read if by omitting \u201cor.\u201d A judgment was accordingly rendered. Suffice it to say that the verdict form did not sufficiently explain the options the jury had and consequently we cannot say that the jury acted according to law. Shelton v. State, 261 Ark. 816, 552 S.W. 2d 216 (1977); and Brown v. State, 261 Ark. 683, 550 S.W. 2d 776 (1977).\nIt becomes unnecessary to discuss appellant\u2019s other contention that newly discovered evidence warrants a reversal.\nReversed and remanded.\nWe agree: Harris, C J., and Fogleman and Byrd, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gene Worsham, for appellant.",
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Joyce Williams Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Parker HARRIS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 77-195\n561 S.W. 2d 69\nOpinion delivered January 23, 1978\n(Division II)\n[Rehearing denied February 27, 1978.]\nGene Worsham, for appellant.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Joyce Williams Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0680-01",
  "first_page_order": 716,
  "last_page_order": 719
}