Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialpleawillcharacter evidence

defendantprecedentappealpleawilllegal counselcondition precedentappellant

Related Cases

Girtman v. State, 285 Ark. 13, 684 S.W.2d 806

Facts

On January 28, 1984, in Crossett, Arkansas, Willie Lee Girtman shot Ulysses Jasper four times with a .38 revolver, resulting in Jasper's death. Girtman claimed self-defense, stating that he felt threatened after a prior altercation with Jasper. Witnesses testified that Jasper was intoxicated and had initiated a fight with Girtman earlier that day. Girtman admitted to taking a gun with him when he encountered Jasper again, asserting that he shot Jasper in self-defense.

Late in the afternoon of January 28, 1984, in Crossett, Arkansas, the appellant, Willie Lee Girtman shot Ulysses Jasper four times with a .38 revolver and killed him. Girtman was charged with first degree murder and convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to 60 years imprisonment after the jury found he had two prior convictions.

Issue

Did the evidence support Girtman's conviction for first-degree murder, and was the admission of character evidence regarding the deceased prejudicial?

On appeal Girtman argues his conviction must be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence, the wrongful admission of evidence touching on the character of the deceased, and because it was not shown he had legal counsel when he was previously convicted.

Rule

Deadly physical force is justified as self-defense only if the use of such force cannot be avoided, and a mere assault is not sufficient to justify the plea of self-defense.

Deadly physical force is justified as self-defense only if the use of such force cannot be avoided as by retreating. We have held that a condition precedent to a plea of self-defense is an assault upon the defendant 'of such a character that it is with murderous intent, or places the defendant in fear of his life, or great bodily harm. A mere assault is not sufficient to justify the plea of self-defense.'

Analysis

The court found that the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that Girtman acted with premeditation and intent to kill, as he shot Jasper multiple times after their earlier altercation had ended. The evidence indicated that Jasper was not armed and posed no immediate threat when Girtman shot him. The court also noted that Girtman's actions of arming himself and pursuing Jasper undermined his self-defense claim.

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Girtman deliberately and premeditatedly killed Jasper. Their previous altercation was over and the parties had withdrawn. Jasper was very intoxicated. His blood alcohol content was .26%. Girtman by his own sworn statement admitted he never saw a weapon. In the pocket of Jasper's trousers was found an unopened ordinary pocket knife. That is the only evidence Jasper had any sort of weapon. Girtman shot him four times. According to the evidence from the medical examiner, two shots were undoubtedly to Jasper's face, but two were to his back, when the decedent was apparently in a crouching or falling position. Girtman hid the gun and ran home. As he was running one of the neighbors called out to him, but he kept going, not answering.

Conclusion

The court affirmed Girtman's conviction, concluding that the jury's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the admission of character evidence did not deny Girtman a fair trial.

Affirmed.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conviction of Girtman for first-degree murder.

The State proved Girtman had counsel or waived it regarding these convictions.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

State ex rel. Glover v. State, 660 So.2d 1189, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95)

Garcia by Garcia v. Miera, 817 F.2d 650, 39 Ed. Law Rep. 33

Gray v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 313, 356 S.E.2d 157

Cabral v. State, 127 Hawai‘i 175, 277 P.3d 269

Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504, 84 USLW 4032, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 331, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 262, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 577