Luckinbill v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Woodruff Circuit Court. M. T. Sanders, Judge. 1. The State should have been required to introduce the-eye-witness to the killing, and if the State refuses the court, should call them on its own motion.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Woodruff Circuit Court. M. T. Sanders, Judge. 1. The State should have been required to introduce the-eye-witness to the killing, and if the State refuses the court, should call them on its own motion. These witnesses saw the tragedy, were before the Grand Jury, and their names were indorsed on the indictment. 1 C. mid P., 8‡, and note; g id., 22; 8 id., 338; 10 Mich., 223; 17 id., 445/ 18 id., 327; 23 id., fo6; 38 id., 12‡; 3p id., 312; 37 id., 8; 30 id., 16; ‡ Mass., 6‡6; ¿¡o Mich., 716; 30 Vt., 3fo; Whart. Cr. Ev., sec. ‡‡8; Whart. Cr. PI. & Pr., sec. 363, and note; Roscoe Cr.…
1Per curiam
The appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree. The killing was admitted and the plea of necessary self-defense interposed.
The altercation began and ended in a store-room. The defendant and deceased were both armed with pistols. There was testimony tending to show that the deceased made the first demonstration of violence by attempting to draw his pistol; that the defendant first succeeded in getting his pistol in condition for use, and fired while the deceased was attempting to extricate his pistol from entanglement in a handkerchief which he carried in the same pocket; that,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Taylor v. McClintockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. HittSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- McDonald v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Beason v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Weaver v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.