{
  "id": 1497318,
  "name": "Myers v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Myers v. State",
  "decision_date": "1906-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "302",
  "last_page": "304",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 Ark. 302"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3816,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.72,
    "sha256": "819c3f1de204567382f42738f6f6e459f2c9003abe30fd6fe7fe32fa43557218",
    "simhash": "1:fd8729259c955d11",
    "word_count": 658
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:05.844603+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hiee, C. J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Myers v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nOn a good indictment charging appellant with the crime of murder in the first degree in the killing of one Will Payne, appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and sentenced to three years in the pentitentiary. Two grounds are urged for reversal.\n1. That the court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to ask the witness, Thomas East, who testified for appellant, this question: \u201cDid you ever have any contract with Dr. Myers in regard to testifying'?\u201d and in permitting the witness to answer. Appellant contends that the question was improper and prejudicial. He says \u201cthat it had a tendency to prejudice the minds of the jury against appellant, and injure his cause, by attempting to show that his father, Dr. Myers, was using his influence and means to secure false testimony in behalf of the appellant, without showing that appellant was present and consenting thereto, or that he had authorized his father to do so. The question was not prejudicial, because the witness answered it in the negative. Had it been shown that appellant\u2019s father had made an attempt to influence improperly a witness to testify falsely in behalf of his son, and had failed, such testimony would be prejudicial; but such is not the effect of the question and answer here. On the contrary, it shows that there was no attempt by appellant\u2019s father to bribe the witness. If the question, as asked, had been answered in the affirmative, showing that the witness was testifying under contract with Dr. Myers, it would have been proper testimony going to the credibility of the witness East.\n2. It is contended that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, but, after carefully reviewing the evidence in the record, we are of the opinion that it amply sustains the verdict. Appellant and deceased at the time of the killing were bitter enemies, the result of a previous quarrel and fight in which appellant had been \u201cbadly beaten up\u201d by Payne, who was the larger and stronger man. Appellant had not seen Payne after the previous fight \u201cuntil the day of the shooting.\u201d He had been heard to say \u201cshortly after the fight\u201d that he \u201cwould get him yet,\u201d meaning Payne. On the day of the shooting witnesses for the State testified that they saw Payne and appellant in front of the drug store of the father of appellant; that 'the first thing that attracted their attention was the first shot; then they saw Payne running, and appellant firing at him. Appellant fired several shots at Payne while he was running. One witness testified for the State that the party shooting \u201cseemed to be in the door of the drug store.\u201d Other witnesses for State say that Payne did not turn toward the appellant \u201cat any time,\u201d \u201cor attempt to do anything.\u201d Witnesses also say that after the shooting appellant came into the drug store, and said: \u201cI got the son of a bitch; I fixed him.\u201d Deceased was shown to have been shot in the back and on the right side. True, testimony for appellant tended to show threats on part of Payne to kill Dr. Myers and his son, which threats were communicated to appellant on the day of the killing, and the appellant\u2019s own testimony tends to prove that Payne was the aggressor at the time of the killing. But the weight of the evidence was for the jury.\nFrom the viewpoint of the State, the evidence certainly warranted a verdict for even a higher degree than the jury found.\nAffirm.\nHiee, C. J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. B. Judkins, for appellant.",
      "Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Myers v. State.\nOpinion delivered April 7, 1906.\nWitness \u2014 impeachment.\u2014It was proper to ask a witness for the defendant in a murder case whether he had any contract with defendant\u2019s father in regard to testifying.\nAppeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Western District; Frederick D. Fulkerson, Judge;\naffirmed.\nJ. B. Judkins, for appellant.\nRobert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0302-01",
  "first_page_order": 322,
  "last_page_order": 324
}