Derrick v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
, Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court; Eugene Eankford, ¡.Judge; I. Mere words, however vile or insulting, do not justify an assault, neither do threats. Clark’s Crim. Daw, 1894 Ed., 215 and cases cited; 2 Bishop’s Crim.
Read the full summary
, Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court; Eugene Eankford, ¡.Judge; I. Mere words, however vile or insulting, do not justify an assault, neither do threats. Clark’s Crim. Daw, 1894 Ed., 215 and cases cited; 2 Bishop’s Crim. Law, 7th Ed., art. 40; 75 Ark. 142; Id. 238. * 2. The law presumes that one intends the reasonable consequence of his acts; and where, as in this case, it is apparent from the circumstances of the attack and the weapon used, that the defendant intended to commit an injury, the law will presume malice. 1 Wharton, Crim. Law, § 970; 23 Ark. 405; 35 Ark. 585; 38 Ark. 221; 45 Ark.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellant was indicted for assault with intent to kill, and was convicted of that offense. The alleged offense consisted of cutting one Newton with a pocket .knife. The testimony shows that he cut Newton nine times, two or three of the wounds inflicted being serious ones, and the last was inT ilicted after Newton fell to the ground. Newton was intoxb cated at the time, and does not pretend to remember all that, ocr curred, but relates a good deal that he says he remembers. Suffice it to say that the testimony which he gave at the trial of the case was sufficient to make out a case of assault…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Taylor v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
3Cited by11 opinions
- Echols v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
- Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
- Tiner v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Doran v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Carlton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.