Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

95 Ark. 239

Bryant v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 30, 1910

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1910-05-30

Hutton, Judge; Defendant was entitled to a change of venue. 85 Ark. 518; 83 Ark. 36; 71 Ark. 180; 54 Ark. 247. A party producing a witness cannot impeach him if foe is not an indispensable witness. Kirby’s Dig., § 3137. Malice aforethought means the dictate of a wicked, depraved and malignant heart. 49 N. H. 399. Unless the character of deceased is attacked, the prosecution can not prove his peaceableness. 37 Ala. 103; 96 Ky. 212; 28 S. W. 500; 1 Wfoart. Crim. Law., 549.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In this case the evidence adduced by the defendant on cross-examination tended to prove that the deceased1 was aggressive, quick to take offense, and resent it with force unnecessarily. The evidence adduced by the state was admissible to remove such impression.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Johnson, Mode v. State

Relies on Jackson v. State · Maxey v. State · White v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

affirmed · Decided 1910-05-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 1975

19 state decisions

801910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Battle, J.

¶1The grand jury of White County indicted Will Bryant for murder in the first degree. He was convicted of murder in' the second degree, and his punishment was assessed at seven years in the penitentiary; and he appealed.

¶2He moved for a change of venue on the ground that the minds of the inhabitants of White County were so prejudiced against him that he could not get a fair and impartial trial in that county. His motion was corroborated by the affidavits of four witnesses. To test their credibility they were examined under oat'h. The testimony of three of them showed that their information as to the minds of the inhabitants was too limited to enable them to form an opinion, and that they swore recklessly, and in this case was not credible. The other was not a qualified elector of the county, as required by the statute. The court committed no error in overruling t'he motion. Kinslow v. State, 85 Ark. 518; White v. State, 83 Ark. 36; Duckworth v. State, 80 Ark. 360; Maxey v. State, 76 Ark. 276; Price v. State, 71 Ark. 180; Jackson v. State, 54 Ark. 243.

¶3On cross examination of Mrs. Minta Potter, the widow of the man killed, the witness testified that the deceased “was quick to get mad and fight, and he was a brave man, and would fight at the drop of a hat.” The State by many witnesses proved in rebuttal that the general reputation of the deceased for being a quiet, peaceable citizen was good. The appellant contends that the court erred in admitting it. It was only admissible for the purpose of sustaining the reputation of the deceased after it had been attacked. In this case the evidence adduced by the defendant on cross examination tended to prove that the deceased was aggressive, quick to take offense, and resent it with force unnecessarily. The evidence adduced by the State was admissible to remove such impression. Wharton on Homicide (3 ed.), § 269, and cases cited.

¶4The court refused to allow the defendant to read as evidence certain notices. The contents of the notices were .not shown, and we are unable to determine whether the court committed a reversible error in excluding them.

¶5The evidence was sufficient- to sustain the verdict in this court.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/95/ark/239 · .json · Public domain