68 Ark. 355 | Ark. | 1900
(after stating the facts.) The first question raised by the appeal in this' case has reference to the action of the circuit judge in permitting declarations made by Bass after the shooting to be introduced as evidence on the part of the state. Appellant contends that it was not shown that these declarations were made under a sense of impending death. Thelaw bearing on the admissibility of dying declarations is very clearly stated in Greenleaf on Evidence as follows: “It is essential to the admissibility of these declarations, and is a preliminary fact' to be proved by the party offering them in evidence, that they were made under a sense of impending death. But it is not necessary they should be stated at the time to be so made. It is enough if it satisfactorily appears in any mode that they were made under that sanction, whether it be directly proved by the express language of the declarant, or be inferred from his evident danger, or the opinions of the medical or other attendants stated to him, or from his conduct or other circumstances of the ease, all of which are resorted to in order to ascertain the state of the declarant’s mind.” 1 Greenleaf, Evidence (16th Ed.) § 158; Dunn v. State, 2 Ark. 229; Mattox v. United States, 146 U. S. 140, 151; 3 Russell on Crimes (International Ed.) 391; People v. Simpson, 48 Mich. 474.
Now, in -this ease Bass was shot in front on the right side of the chest. The bullet passed through him, and came out at his back at a point some lower than where it entered. The effect of this wound was such that Bass reeled in the saddle, and, after being carried by his horse about half a mile from the place of the shooting, fell to the ground, and lay with his face downward, unable to move. A man, who lived near', seeing him fall, came to him, and turned him over. Finding his condition was such that he could not easily be moved, he brought a quilt, and laid Bass upon that while he summoned a physician and the neighbors. The physician testified that the wound made by the bullet in front was as large as his middle finger, and that in the back where it came out it was as large as his thumb. Bass was very weak, and was suffering greatly. The physician saw that the wound was mortal, though he expressed no opinion to Bass. Bass did not ask the doctor for his opinion, nor say anything to show whether or not he had hopes of recovery, but only asked for something to relieve his pain. Among those who came to see Bass was his grandfather. He leaned over Bass where he lay on the quilt, and said, “John, what is the matter?” Bass answered, “I am shot.” “Who did it?” asked his grandfather. “New-berry,” replied Bass. His grandfather, then still leaning over him, and in the same tone of voice, said: “Now, boys, listen to him while he tells how it happened before he dies.” In response to these words of his grandfather, Bass made the statement admitted in evidence as his dying declaration. The statement that he made is not long, but the witnesses say that he was so weak that it took him an hour to make it. He was gasping for breath, and to those who saw him it was evident that death was only a short distance ahead. The probability is that Bass realized his situation, for when his grandfather intimated to him that death was near, and that he should make a statement, he at once commenced to do so, thus showing that he assented to the opinion expressed by his grandfather. He died in five hours after being shot, and about three hours after making the statement.
The admission of dying declarations as evidence in prosecutions for homicide to show the circumstances of the death of the declarant is justified on the ground of necessity. The slayer and the slain may have been the only persons present at the tragedy, and, if the dying declarations of the circumstances of his death made by the deceased could not be shown, it would at times be impossible to punish the guilty. Even when there are other witnesses, they may be unfriendly to the deceased, or may be ignorant of essential facts. For these reasons it is important that the circumstances as they appear to the deceased should also be shown. Especially is this true now, since under modern statutes the defendant is allowed to testify and give his view of the facts. The law therefore admits such declarations when made under a sense of impending death. Whether they were so made being a preliminary question of fact for the trial judge, his finding to that effect will not be overturned when there is evidence supporting it. The circumstances in proof here support the finding of the judge on that point, and such finding must stand.
■ Such declarations can be admitted only to prove the circumstances attending or leading up to the homicide, and some of the declarations of. Bass relating to the controversy about the key were not properly admitted, but we do not see that they were prejudicial. Whether Bass or Newberry was-right in the controversy about the key did not justify Newberry in killing Bass. The instruction asked by defendant that the jury in determining the weight to be given the statement of Bass might take into consideration his mental condition at the time, and the fact that defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine, might well have been given, but the court did tell the jury that it was for them to determine the weight to be given to such statements, and that they could, with other circumstances, consider whether such statements were voluntarily made, and whether they covered all the circumstances of the shooting. Taking the Avhole charge together, we think the case was fairly presented to the jury, and that no prejudice resulted from the refusal to give the instruction asked.
The evidence as presented in the transcript makes out a strong case of unlawful killing. It is undisputed tbat when the controversy about the key commenced Bass was sitting on his pony, about forty feet from Newberry, who was seated on a mule. Bass was unarmed. Newberry had a Winchester rifle. Bass stated that he refused to retract a statement to the effect that Newberry had promised him another key, and that thereupon Newberry got off Ms mule, and shot him. Newberry testified that Bass was riding toward him with his hand in his pocket, threatening to kill him, and that he got off his mule and shot Bass while Bass was ten or twelve feet away on Ms pony. He admits that at this time he saw no weapons, and Bass had none except a small pocket knife. There was other testimony that the tracks of a pony and a mule were seen in the road at the place where the shooting occurred. The tracks of Newberry where he stood beside his mule at the time he fired, and the tracks of the pony when it whirled in the road after the shot, were seen, and showed that Bass did not advance upon Newberry. A careful consideration of tbe evidence leaves no doubt in our minds tbat tbe killing of Bass was not done in self-defense. Tbe verdict of tbe jury was as favorable-to the defendant as the evidence warranted, and, finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.