Title: Mode v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

350 S.W.2d 675 (1961) Lee MODE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. 5011. Supreme Court of Arkansas. October 30, 1961. Rehearing Denied December 4, 1981. *676 Brazil & Brazil, Morrilton, Holt, Park & Holt, Little Rock, Hardin, Barton & Hardin, Fort Smith, for appellant. J. Frank Holt, Atty. Gen., by Thorp Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. McFADDIN, Justice. From a conviction of second degree murder for the homicide of D. L. Russell, Lee Mode prosecutes the present appeal. The first appeal is Mode v. State, 231 Ark. 477, 330 S.W.2d 88, wherein we recited the facts and held that the appellant had shown only one error in the trial, which error concerned an instruction. The cause was remanded and, on retrial, Mode was again convicted of second degree murder and now prosecutes the present appeal. The error in the instruction in the first trial did not occur in the second trial. With only a few exceptions, to be subsequently noted, the assignments in the motion for new trial in the present appeal are the same as the assignments in the motion for new trial in the first appeal, since the evidence offered and the rulings made were practically the same in both trials. The rule of "law of the case" precludes the appellant from now urging any point that was assigned as error on the first appeal. Rankin v. Schofield, 81 Ark. 440, 98 S.W. 674; St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hill, 92 Ark. 484, 123 S.W. 760; St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. DeLambert, 120 Ark. 61, 178 S.W. 926; and Ford Motor Co. v. Fish, Ark., 346 S.W.2d 469. In Bowman v. State, 93 Ark. 168, 129 S.W. 80, this Court held that the rule of "law of the case" was applicable to criminal cases as well as to civil cases, and such is also the rule in other jurisdictions. In 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1840, p. 690, under the topic, "Former Decision as Law of Case," cases from sixteen jurisdictions are cited to sustain this statement: The text also says: Our long established rule in felony appeals is that this Court will consider every assignment in the motion for new trial, regardless of whether the assignment be argued in the briefs. In Martin v. State, 206 Ark. 151, 174 S.W.2d 242, we said: See also Boyd v. State, 215 Ark. 156, 219 S.W.2d 623. The application of the foregoing rules means that the appellant is now precluded from urging as error any assignment in the motion for new trial in the present appeal if that assignment was contained in the motion for new trial in the *677 first appeal, and based on a record exception. This is a sound rule[1] it prevents an appellant from failing to argue a point on the first appeal in order to save it as a possible ground for reversal should he be convicted at a second trial, and thus obtain a successive number of trials, with each involving an identical ruling in a previous trial, which ruling was not argued on the previous appeal. We have made a careful comparison of the assignments contained in the motion for new trial in the present appeal, as against those contained in the motion for new trial in the first appeal. Under the rule of "law of the case," we eliminate all such, and we proceed now to discuss the assignments concerning matters which were not foreclosed by the first appeal. Testimony Of Jerry Russell At The Former Trial. Jerry Russell testified in the first trial, and a transcript of his testimony was read at the present trial after the State had offered evidence that the witness could not be found. Appellant claims the Court committed error in allowing the transcript of testimony to be read to the jury. The efforts to locate the witness were shown in considerable detail: subpoenas were returned "non-est," the State Police had been unsuccessful in a search for the witness, and the grandparents of the witness testified that they did not know where he was. In the light of such showing, we find no error committed by the Trial Court in allowing the State to read to the jury the testimony of the witness given at the former trial. Section 28-713 Ark.Stats. is the applicable statute, and says, inter alia, that such former testimony may be read to the jury "* * * when for any reason the former witness may not be available." There was such a showing in this case. The objections to the content of the testimony of the witness, Jerry Russell, are foreclosed by the rule of "law of the case," supra. Relationship Between Mr. Mode And Mrs. Russell Subsequent To The Homicide. The witness, Clara Eggleston, introduced pictures of Mrs. Mildred Russell (wife of the deceased) taken in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, in 1959 and 1960. The witness also testified that in June, July, and August, 1959, Mrs. Russell was then going under the name of Mildred Mode and was living with Lee Mode in a trailer court in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. Two other witnesses also testified as to pictures of Mrs. Mildred Russell taken about the same time in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. In admitting such testimony of these witnesses, the Trial Court ruled: We find no error in the Court's ruling. In Hornsby v. State, 163 Ark. 396, 260 S.W. 41, 44, Hornsby was accused of killing Mr. Fells because of Hornsby's love and infatuation for Mrs. Fells. In that case the Trial Court allowed letters to be introduced that Hornsby had written Mrs. Fells after they were put in jail. This Court affirmed the ruling of the Trial Court, saying: So, in the case at bar, the evidence that Mrs. Russell and Mr. Mode were living together in a trailer court in Sallisaw, Oklahoma during the summer of 1959 would be admissible on the question of motive, if any, as to the cause of the homicide; and also the conduct of Mode and Mrs. Russell subsequent to the homicide could be shown as shedding light on the relationship toward each other prior to the homicide. Evidence Of Good Character Of Deceased. This is the point that has given us the most serious concern.[2] Assignment No. 43 in the motion for new trial reads: Appellant insists that the general reputation of D. L. Russell for being a peaceable and law-abiding citizen had never been attacked by evidence offered by the defense, and for that reason it was fatal error for the Court to allow the State on rebuttal to show Russell's reputation as being a peaceable and law-abiding citizen. We have a number of cases which deal with various cases of this matter, but in each there was a state of facts different from those presented in the case at bar. Some such cases are: Palmore v. State, 29 Ark. 248; Bloomer v. State, 75 Ark. 297, 87 S.W. 438; Bryant v. State, 95 Ark. 239, 129 S.W. 295; Shuffield v. State, 120 Ark. 458, 179 S.W. 650; Kelley v. State, 146 Ark. 509, 226 SW. 137; Carr v. State, 147 Ark. 524, 227 S.W. 776; Fisher v. State, 149 Ark. 48, 231 S.W. 181; Jett v. State, 151 Ark. 439, 236 S.W. 621; Bogue v. State, 152 Ark. 378, 238 S.W. 64; Bridges v. State, 169 Ark. 335, 275 S.W. 671; Day v. State, 185 Ark. 710, 49 S.W.2d 380; and Burton v. State, 204 Ark. 548, 163 S.W.2d 160. From these cases, we recognize the pertinent rules in Arkansas in a homicide case (as is the one at bar) to be: (a) that in the case in chief the State may not show the general reputation of the deceased as a peaceable and law-abiding citizen; (b) that unless the defendant undertakes to show that the deceased was not a peaceable and law-abiding citizen, then the State may not, on rebuttal, offer evidence of such good reputation; and (c) that bad reputation may not be shown by testimony as to specific acts of violence or turbulence. These are the general rules, but in the case at bar the defendant, under his claim of self-defense, showed-as was his righta vast number of specific acts of bad conduct on the part of the deceased. This testimony related to threats, shooting, carrying a gun, fighting, etc., concerning all of which Mode was aware personally or was so advised by others. We list the following specific instances, wherein the defense elicited testimony about the conduct of the deceased: (a) Witness Dave Ward testified that a year before the fatal shooting, Russell told Ward that he (Russell) was carrying a gun for Mode and that he was going to kill Mode; that Ward conveyed that threat to Mode; that Ward got Russell to put up his gun in July, and Russell said he could kill Mode without a gun; that hard feelings existed between Russell and Mode; that Ward saw a gun in the glove compartment of Russell's car two or three times; that Russell "jumped on" John McCracken and got into a heated argument with Ward and Elbert Ryan, Shop Superintendent, in Ward's office in July. (b) Roy Barton testified that Russell came to his garage one day looking for Mode; that Russell was "mad" and said that if he found Mode he would kill him. (c) George W. Robinson testified that Russell asked him if he had a gun (which he didn't); that Russell cursed and said he was getting tired of Mode coming out to his house; that the next time or two Russell went to town he "picked up a gun" and said he was going up there and get some shells and kill Mr. Mode and J. D. (Mode) both, if necessary; that Robinson told Mr. Mode about the threats and told Mode "to watch himto watch out for him." (d) Virgil McCoy testified that Russell said he didn't want Mode out on the farm that he was going to shoot him if he came back out there; and McCoy gave the information to Mode. (e) Charles Hartsell testified that Russell came to Mode's house, cursed Mode, and told him to come out, and then stated that he would kill him if he did come out. (f) Bruce Henderson testified that Russell tried to borrow a gun from him; that, later, Russell had a gun that was jammed and asked Henderson to show him how it would shoot; that he said he took the gun *680 from Mode and wanted it with which to kill Mode. (g) Leo Looper testified that Russell said he and Mode were having trouble, and Russell cursed and said if he could find Mode he would kill him. (h) Elmer Joe Swaffer testified that Russell attacked Mr. Modemade a lunge at Mode and grabbed him around the neck (at the fatal encounter). (i) Gerald Mode testified that Russell came to Mode's house and cursed him and threatened to kill him; that Russell told Gerald downtown that he would get his father, Lee Mode, sooner or later, and that Russell came to Mode's house one night and shot two or three times over the house. We hold that when the defense offered all of the foregoing evidence, the defense thereby opened the door for the State to show on rebuttal the general reputation of the deceased Russell as a peaceable and law-abiding citizen. Such evidence certainly tended to rebut the defendant's evidence as to acts of bad conduct, turbulence and violence on the part of the deceased. Even though general reputation cannot be shown by acts of specific misconduct, yet when, under the claim of self-defense, there is offeredas heresuch an abundance of testimony of specific acts of bad conduct as to present a picture of the deceased being a violent and turbulent man, then the defense has, in effect, attacked the good reputation of the deceased and has opened the door for the State to show on rebuttal the general reputation of the deceased as a peaceable and law-abiding citizen. In Carr v. State, 147 Ark. 524, 227 S.W. 776, the appellant attacked the reputation of the deceased for peace and quietude; the State introduced a witness to show that the reputation of the deceased was good. Appellant attempted on cross-examination of the witness to elicit his knowledge of acts of violence on the part of the deceased indicating otherwise. The defense offered to show testimony of nine specific acts of violence, but this evidence was rejected. In holding that the Court was in error in refusing the proffered testimony, we said: It is true that in two subsequent cases there were attempts by this Court to limit or distinguish the language in the Carr case. These cases are Fisher v. State, 149 Ark. 48, 231 S.W. 181, and Bridges v. State, 169 Ark. 335, 275 S.W. 671. In each of these cases the factual situations and the defenses were different from those in the Carr case and also in the case at bar. In Bridges v. State, supra, there was no plea of selfdefense and no testimony of threats offered by the deceased against the appellant, and no evidence of specific acts of violence by the deceased. So the Bridges case is not in point. In Fisher v. State, supra, the defense offered evidence about the deceased seeking to borrow a pistol, and the State contended that such testimony allowed the State, on rebuttal, to show the good reputation of the deceased. But this Court said: The case of Bryant v. State, 95 Ark. 239, 129 S.W. 292, 295, shows how slight need be the evidence offered by the defense in order for the State on rebuttal to show the general reputation of the deceased. In that case, Mr. Justice Battle, speaking for the Court, said: Our holding, that the defense opened the door to allow the questioned testimony on rebuttal, is in accord with the holdings in other jurisdictions and also in accord with the text writers.[3] The case of State v. Rutledge, Iowa, 47 N.W.2d 251, 262, goes thoroughly into the matter. Testimony was admitted in rebuttal that deceased was a quiet and peaceable citizen, and the defense asserted that no attack had been made on deceased's character or reputation and that the admission of the evidence constituted error. The testimony complained of was to the effect that deceased had made various telephone calls to the accused in which he abused, cursed, and threatened to come to the hospital and beat him up; that he brandished a knife while talking to defendant's detective and told him to warn defendant that he was not a doctor but that he could operate; and that deceased was frequently intoxicated. In holding that the testimony concerning deceased's good character as a quiet and peaceable citizen was admissible in rebuttal, the Iowa Supreme Court said: Another case is Sweazy v. State, 210 Indiana 674, 1 N.E.2d 992, 5 N.E.2d 511. The *682 question presented was whether testimony as to the general reputation of the deceased for peace and quietude could be introduced. The Indiana Supreme Court said: The Indiana Court further quoted from Fields v. State, 1892, 134 Ind. 46, 32 N.E. 780, 783, as follows: The question was before the New Mexico Supreme Court in State v. Brock, 56 N.M. 338, 244 P.2d 131, 34 A.L.R.2d 447, wherein the specific acts testified to were as follows: Deceased came to defendant's house and asked to borrow money to help pay for a rifle, and was refused. Thereupon, deceased made the statement that if the defendant didn't get out of there he would throw him out or blow him out. The same threat was repeated on two subsequent occasions. Later, when the two were attempting to talk things over, deceased pulled a gun on defendant and defendant shot first and killed deceased. In holding that testimony concerning deceased's reputation for being a quiet and peaceable man was admissible on rebuttal, the New Mexico Court cited, inter alia, State v. Todd, 28 N.M. 518, 214 P. 899; State v. Rutledge, Iowa, 47 N.W.2d 251; and DeWoody v. State, 21 Ariz. 613, 193 P. 299; and quoted from the DeWoody opinion, as follows: We have carefully considered all the assignments and find no error. Affirmed. JOHNSON, Justice (dissenting). This case is before us for the second time. I was convinced that the judgment in the former appeal, Mode v. State, *683 231 Ark. 477, 330 S.W.2d 88, should have been affirmed and so voted. In that case I found no reversible error nor did I find any erroneous extension by this Court of the basic rules of criminal procedure. I view these rules as sacred rights which belong to every accused whether that person be guilty or innocent and consider any court's extension of those rules beyond its province. The majority's discussion of appellate procedure in felony cases gives me much concern. The majority has applied several rules of practice in a manner which seems inconsistent with the purpose of those rules. I find no statutory equivalent in felony appeals of the mandate of Ark.Stats. § 43-2723 in capital appeals. No doubt the purpose of the legislature in enacting § 43-2723 was to make certain that no conviction of a capital offense will be allowed to stand unless the defendant received a trial which was consistent with the fundamental standards of due process and procedural fairness. The statute requires the court to review the entire record for prejudicial error before affirming a conviction. If such error does appear the conviction must be reversed, whether the error was argued by counsel or not. The requirement in felony appeals to review all errors contained in the motion for new trial, whether or not argued in the apppellant's brief is an extension in case law of the duty imposed by § 43-2723. The same considerations underlying the statute are presented in felony appeals. In both instances it is my view that the duty of the court to examine the record for error is at an end when reversible error is found. Of course, the court may wish to continue to examine other assignments after finding reversible error. Rand v. State, Ark, 341 S.W.2d 9. If this is done and those assignments are discussed and actual findings are made, I agree that on these points there is a binding determination. On a subsequent appeal the defendant would normally be precluded from arguing those same assignments of error which had actually been passed on. The reason for this is simply that those assignments, supported by the same proof, with the same objections and exceptions, would be as much without merit on the second appeal as on the first. On the previous appeal appellant argued only nine points in his brief. This Court in its opinion thoroughly discussed only two of those points and generally discussed the remaining seven points in the following language: "Appellant argues several other points, all of which we have examined, but we find no error other than the giving of Instruction No. 9." Yet the record in the first appeal reveals that no less than 64 assignments of error were contained in the motion for new trial. It is my view that those assignments not argued in the nine points upon which this Court actually passed do not become the "law of the case." The majority under the heading "Evidence of Good Character of Deceased" devotes the major portion of its opinion to an assignment of error which was contained in appellant's motion for new trial in the first appeal. After a careful re-reading of the briefs in that case I have been unable to find one word of argument relative to this assignment contained in the nine points upon which this Court actually passed. Except for the discovery of the absence of an objection to testimony of the good character of the deceased on the first appeal, according to the majority opinion, consideration of this assignment also would have been foreclosed under their rule of "the law of the case." Under my view this assignment is properly before this Court regardless of the absence of an objection in the previous trial, since this Court did not actually pass upon this matter on the first appeal. With the point properly before us I am convinced that the majority opinion has effectively held that the entry of a plea of selfdefense in a homicide case is sufficient *684 to allow the prosecution to introduce evidence of the deceased's reputation for peace and quiet in rebuttal. It has never been the rule in homicide cases in this State to allow the prosecution to introduce evidence of the deceased's reputation for peace and quiet when the issue of self-defense is raised. As was said in Bloomer v. State, 75 Ark. 297, 87 S.W. 438, 439: That rule was reaffirmed in Carr v. State, 147 Ark. 524, 227 S.W. 776; and in Fisher v. State, 149 Ark. 48, 231 S.W. 181. As Justice Wood observed in Bridges v. State, 169 Ark. 335, 275 S.W. 671, 672, the Carr and Bloomer cases are not in conflict on this point: I do not agree with the majority in their conclusion that a plea of self-defense was not entered in the Bridges case supra. Be that as it may, in my view neither the Carr case nor the Bridges case, as to the facts contained therein, aid the Court in deciding the present appeal since it was assumed in both instances that the defendant's testimony was or was not an attack on the deceased's reputation for peace and quiet. Certainly the right of a defendant upon entry of a plea of self-defense to show that the deceased was a violent and dangerous man can not be questioned. Palmore v. State, 29 Ark. 248; Edwards v. State, 208 Ark. 231, 185 S.W.2d 556. In every case where the defendant has introduced evidence in support of his plea the issue remains to be decided whether that evidence constituted an attack on the deceased's reputation for peace and quiet that would allow the prosecution to offer evidence of the deceased's good reputation in rebuttal. Carr v. State, supra; Bridges v. State, supra. In the case at bar the defendant's evidence was not sufficient to constitute a general attack on the deceased's reputation for peace and quiet to allow the prosecution to offer evidence in rebuttal. Although the incidents that were related in the testimony did occur over a period of time, in each instance the testimony tended to show only the ill feeling and animosity of the deceased toward the defendant. Under this view Bryant v. State, 95 Ark. 239, 129 S.W. 295, is distinguishable from the present case. As that portion of the opinion quoted by the majority indicates the widow of the deceased testified *685 on cross-examination 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." This testimony clearly was a direct attack on the reputation of the deceased, whereas the testimony in this case is evidence of the ill feeling of the deceased toward the defendant and that the deceased was the aggressor. The cases cited in the majority opinion from foreign jurisdictions announcing a doctrine contrary to our own, might be persuasive to me if this were a matter of first impression in this state, but, as indicated above, such is not the case. The text writers have long recognized the existence of the minority rule, and have never placed Arkansas in that group. 1 Wigmore, Evidence, § 63 (3rd Ed, 1949); Note, 3 Ark.L.Rev. 464 (1949); Anno, 34 A.L.R.2d 451 (1954). Therefore, it is my opinion that whatever may be the ruling elsewhere, I consider our own cases sound, and here refuse to be a party to the extension of our basic rules of criminal procedure. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. [1] This is particularly demonstrated in the ease at bar wherein the opinion on the first appeal concludes with the language: "Appellant argues several other points, all of which we have examined, but we find no error other than the giving of Instruction No. 9." [2] This point was not argued in the appellant's brief but was urged in the oral argument. Because of our rule previously mentionedthat in felony cases this Court examines all assignments in the motion for new trialthis point is properly before us because it was an assignment in the motion for new trial. The rule in felony cases is different from the rule in civil cases, in which latter we consider only the points listed in the briefs. [3] There is an enlightening discussion in McCormick on Evidence, pages 339 and 340.