{ "id": 1529016, "name": "Dear v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Dear v. State", "decision_date": "1907-02-25", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "58", "last_page": "61", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 Ark. 58" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "57 Ark. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1324601 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/57/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Ark. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1902352 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/61/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ark. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "66 Ark. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1909781 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/66/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1504013 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/73/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1504061 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/73/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Ark. 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1913344 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/52/0303-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ark. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "180 U. S. 356", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3617833, 1250777 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/180/0356-01", "/alaska-fed/1/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ark. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1509438 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/70/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1504061 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/73/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Ark. 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1913344 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/52/0303-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 378, "char_count": 5557, "ocr_confidence": 0.678, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7807807004808204e-07, "percentile": 0.7134578116330335 }, "sha256": "224e35233194d7563644b7ee5c66a4ac983c4c583b5053f67a86ae7f86f272f1", "simhash": "1:01915488bb4754f9", "word_count": 976 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:32.340981+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Dear v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) There was evidence to justify a verdict for murder in the first degree, aside from the testimony of Thomas Isaac. But, if the jury had believed appellant, they would have been warranted in acquitting him or in finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The jury might have used the testimony of Isaac to supply the malice and premeditation which but for his testimony they might have concluded did not exist. The testimony of Isaac was therefore prejudicial. It tended to show a general malevolent spirit, a wicked and abandoned disposition; that appellant was in a frame of mind fatally bent on mischief which culminated in the killing of Bronson. But the testimony was clearly incompetent, because the threat \u201cto shoot his gun till it melted,\u201d made several hours, before the tragedy, was not directed against Bronson, the man who was killed, \u201cbut against another fellow.\u201d The proof showed that there was no ill will between appellant and Bronson before the killing. On the contrary, they were shown to be on friendly terms. Appellant ate supper with Bronson at the latter\u2019s home a short time before the killing. The threats -were \u201cin the air,\u201d so to speak. They were too remote and indefinite to become a part of the res gestae. Casteel v. State, 73 Ark. 152; Meisenheimer v. State, Id. 407; Levy v. State, 70 Ark. 610; Billings v. State, 52 Ark. 303; 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2 Ed.), 219, 220; Bird v. United States, 180 U. S. 356. The admission of this evidence was error. No specific error is pointed out in the court\u2019s charge, and we find none. The judgment is reversed for the error indicated, and cause remanded for new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "W. D. Dinning, for appellant.", "Wm. F. Kirby, Attorney General, and Daniel Taylor, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Dear v. State.\nOpinion delivered February 25, 1907.\nEvidence \u2014 threats\u2014res gestae. \u2014 Evidence in a murder case .that defendant, a few hours before he killed deceased, threatened to shoot his gun \"till it melted,\u201d where the threat was directed not against deceased but against a third person, was too remote and indefinite to constitute part of res gestae.\nAppeals from Phillips Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThe indictment in this cause charges, in apt words, that the appellant, Pickens Deal, on or about the 15th day of Decernber, 1902, committed the offense of murder in the first degree by shooting one Cuba Bronson in Phillips County, Arkansas. Trial was had at the October term, 1906, of the Phillips Circuit Court, which resulted in a verdict of murder in the first degree. The appellant was sentenced to be hanged on the nth day of January, 1907, but obtained stay of execution from this court, and the cause is now here for review on appeal from the Phillips Circuit Court.\nThe testimony on behalf of the State tended to prove that on the 15th day of December, 1902, there was a \u201ccrap game\u201d at the home of \u201cCuba\u201d or \u201cCooper\u201d Bronson in Phillips County in which appellant and Cuba Bronson and several others engaged. Cuba Bronson won all they had.\u2019 All the players \u201cdropped out\u201d except Cuba and appellant. Cuba won all appellant had, then \u201cstaked\u201d him for fifty cents, which appellant likewise lost. \u201cThereupon,\u201d, as one of the witnesses related it, \u201cappellant got up, told deceased that he had treated him like a son-of-a-bitch, and went to his bed and got his gun; that-deceased was at the time on his knees counting his money; which position he kept itntil the defendant reached for his -pistol and began to shoot; that he pointed his pistol toward the forehead of deceased, caught him by the arm and began to shoot; after the first shot appellant and deceased got to scuffling, and he heard deceased ask some one to take him off between the first and second shots, but that defendant told witness that he had better get out or he would turn on him; witness then ran home; that deceased died that night; and that it all occurred in Phillips County, Arkansas.\u201d\nBronson was shot in the forehead and between the lower part of the right ear and the back of the neck, also under the lower part of the right ear.\nThomas Isaac for the State testified over the objection of appellant as follows; \u201cOn the afternoon before the killing Pickens Deal was coming down the road, and I spoke to him and asked him concerning a scrap he had had with another fellow. * * * He had his gun with him, and said he intended to shoot it until it melted if they didn\u2019t quit running over him. Said he wouldn\u2019t be very long about it. He didn\u2019t say he was going to shoot any particular fellow. He did not mention the deceased.\u201d\nAppellant saved his exceptions to the ruling of the court in admitting this evidence. The testimony of appellant, if believed by the jury, would have warranted the jury in finding appellant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, or even a verdict of acquittal.\nMotion for new trial, assigning as error, among other things, the admission of the testimony of Thomas Issac, was filed and overruled.\nW. D. Dinning, for appellant.\n1. The evidence was not sufficient to warrant a verdict of murder in the first degree. It can not be said that this was a premeditated, deliberate killing. 76 Ark. 315.\n2. The court erred- in admitting the testimony of Thomas Isaac detailing a conversation with defendant prior to the shooting of deceased, concerning a difficulty with and threats toward \u201canother fellow.\u201d 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2 Ed.), 219 and cases cited; Id. 220; 52 Ark. 303; 70 Ark. 6x0; 73 Ark. 152; 73 Ark. 407; 66 Ark. 494; 63 Ark. 261; 61 Ark. 52; 57 Ark. 287.\nWm. F. Kirby, Attorney General, and Daniel Taylor, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0058-01", "first_page_order": 78, "last_page_order": 81 }