Case ID: ark_73/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Riddick, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Perrymore v. State.
    Opinion delivered December 10, 1904.
    Voluntary manslaughter — evidence.—Evidence that defendant killed deceased in a quarrel by striking him on the head with a board, not in self-defense, justified a conviction of voluntary manslaughter.
    
      Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Northern District.
    Jeptha H. Evans, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    statement by the court.
    The defendant, B. S. Perrymore, was indicted by the grand jury of Logan County for the Northern District for the crime of voluntary manslaughter. The indictment alleged in substance that defendant unlawfully, feloniously and willfully killed Houston Taylor by striking him on the head and body with a board and stick. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, but on the trial before a jury they returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and assessed his punishment at two years’ imprisonment in the State penitentiary. Judgment was rendered against defendant, and he appealed.
    
      Cravens & Covington, for appellant.
    
      George W. Murphy, Attorney General, "for appellee.
   Riddick, J.

(after stating the facts.) We have carefully examined the transcript in this case and find no prejudicial error. The defendant became involved in a quarrel with his cousin, Houston Taylor, and during the difficulty he struck Taylor on the head with a board. The stroke knocked Taylor down, and he never recovered consciousness, and died a few days after-wards. While the killing was the result of a sudden quarrel, still the facts in proof justified the jury in finding that it was not done in self-defense. The result of the stroke probably went further than defendant intended, as the evidence does not show that he intended to kill his cousin. But the stroke was intentional, and, as it was unlawful, defendant must be held responsible for the consequences. On the whole case, we are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.