{ "id": 8722459, "name": "Jerry SIMS v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Sims v. State", "decision_date": "1985-09-09", "docket_number": "CR 85-58", "first_page": "476", "last_page": "479", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "286 Ark. 476" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "695 S.W.2d 376" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "277 Ark. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1750265 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/277/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "387 U.S. 926", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11356608, 11356101, 11356359, 11356008, 11356215 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/387/0926-05", "/us/387/0926-02", "/us/387/0926-04", "/us/387/0926-01", "/us/387/0926-03" ] }, { "cite": "408 S.W.2d 905", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1723964, 1724014 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/241/0300-01", "/ark/241/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 Ark. 300", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1723964 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/241/0300-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 Ark. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1746973 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/279/0430-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 4972, "ocr_confidence": 0.897, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.553285487460147e-08, "percentile": 0.4016848086510063 }, "sha256": "1d156da2c3562a9d12430acb5fd775b4f2cb63c9ffdea6ec364732b8dadd6750", "simhash": "1:133a0d326d25135a", "word_count": 855 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:09.553890+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Purtle, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "Jerry SIMS v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nJerry Sims was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison by a jury for the shooting death of Curtis Cole. None of the alleged errors have merit, and we affirm.\nSims first argues that the evidence of his guilt was insufficient. On appeal we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellee and if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction, we will affirm. Ellis v. State, 279 Ark. 430, 652 S.W.2d 35 (1983). The evidence presented by the state was substantial, although the accounts of the incident were conflicting.\nEarly in the evening of the shooting, Cole had asked Sims to stop bothering a woman in Cole\u2019s night club in Stamps, Arkansas. After that incident, Sims left. Sims returned later dressed in camouflage clothing. Two witnesses testified that after a verbal exchange between Sims and Cole, Sims fired two shots at Cole. Cole fired some shots as he was falling. Both witnesses agreed that Sims fired first and that once Cole was down, Sims stood over him and fired a shot into Cole\u2019s chest. The medical examiner testified that this was the fatal shot. Although two other witnesses said that Cole struck Sims with his gun before the shooting, neither could say who fired the first shot. The jury resolved the conflicting accounts and found Sims guilty. There is no basis to set aside that finding. Ellis v. State, supra.\nSims also argues that the evidence was insufficient that he killed Cole with deliberation and premeditation as required by the: first degree murder statute. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1502 (Repl. 1977). A witness, who saw Sims between the two incidents that night, testified that Sims said he was going to kill Cole. Another witness testified that Cole and Sims had had differences periodically for some time. In Walker v. State, 241 Ark. 300, 408 S.W.2d 905 (1966), reh. den., 387 U.S. 926 (1967), we said:\nThe necessary elements or deliberation and premeditation in the offense of murder in the first degree may be inferred from the factual circumstances as shown by the evidence, where those circumstances clearly warrant the jury in such an inference or conclusion.\nThe facts in this case warrant the jury\u2019s finding of first degree murder.\nFinally, Sims contends that the jury should have been instructed that Sims\u2019 reasonable belief that Cole was committing or about to commit a battery with force or violence is a defense to the charges against him. The instruction is based on AMCI4105. The model instruction, which sets out justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense, contemplates two situations: one where the victim is about to commit a felony with force or violence and another where the victim is about to use unlawful deadly physical force. The instruction Sims contends should have been given is based on the first alternative, whereas the instruction that was given is based on the latter. The choice was obviously the correct one since the victim, Cole, had a gun. The instruction given was as follows:\nJerry Sims asserts as a defense to the charge of Murder 1st degree that deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself. This is a defense only if: First: Jerry Sims reasonably believed that Curtis Cole was using, or was about to use unlawful deadly physical force. And second: Jerry Sims only used such force as he reasonably believed to be necessary.\nA person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows that the use of deadly physical force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating.\nJerry Sims, in asserting this defense, is required only to raise a reasonable doubt in your minds. Consequently, if you believe that his defense has been shown to exist, or if the evidence leaves you with a reasonable doubt as to his guilt of murder 1st degree, then you must find him not guilty.\nHowever, we do not consider Sims\u2019 argument because there is nothing in the record to indicate there was a proper objection or proffer. The offered instruction appears in the record with the pleadings and is marked that it was filed nine days after the trial. The record does not reflect that the trial judge was ever given an opportunity to rule on the instruction. Since the argument was not preserved for appeal, we will not rule on it. Wilson v. State, 277 Ark. 43, 639 S.W.2d 45 (1982).\nUnder Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2725 (Repl. 1977), as put into effect by our Rule 11 (f), we consider all objections brought to our attention in the abstracts and briefs in appeals from a sentence of life imprisonment or death. In this case we find no prejudicial error in the points argued or in the other objections abstracted for review.\nAffirmed.\nPurtle, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "William D. Kelly, Jr., and Edward F. Cochran, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Joel O. Huggins, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Jerry SIMS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 85-58\n695 S.W.2d 376\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 9, 1985\nWilliam D. Kelly, Jr., and Edward F. Cochran, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Joel O. Huggins, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0476-01", "first_page_order": 508, "last_page_order": 511 }