Opinion
04-05-1907
STATE v. MURPHY.
Daniel O. Hastings, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State. John M. Richardson, for defendant.
Robert Murphy was tried on the charge of assault on an officer. Verdict of not guilty.
Argued before SPRUANCE and BOYCE, JJ.
Daniel O. Hastings, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State. John M. Richardson, for defendant.
SPRUANCE, J. (charging jury). The indictment against the defendant, Robert Murphy, in substance charges that on the 4th day of August, 1906, in Northwest Fork hundred, in this county, the defendant did make an assault upon Richard T. Cahall, a constable of this county, while in the legal execution of the duties of his office of constable, and did knowingly obstruct, hinder, and resist the said officer while in the lawful execution of his said office. It is not denied that the said Cahall, at the time of the said alleged offense, was a duly appointed and qualified constable of this county, and that he went to the premises of the defendant for the purpose of making a levy upon his personal property under an execution against the defendant issued by a justice of the peace of this county, which is in evidence.
It is claimed by the state that the said Cahall, before proceeding to execute the said writ, explained to the defendant that he was about to make a levy upon the personal property of the defendant under a writ of execution against the said defendant, in his hands as a county constable, and that thereupon the defendant ordered him off of the premises and assaulted him with a pitchfork, and that soon afterwards the defendant, or some one aiding him or acting in concert with him, locked the outer door of the building in which he (the said constable) was engaged in the execution of said writ, all of which was done for the purpose of preventing said officer from the performance of his duty under said writ. It is claimed by the defendant that he did not know that the said Cahall was a constable, or that he had an execution against him, and that he ordered the said Cahall off of his premises as one having no right to be there; and he denies that he assaulted him, or locked or caused to be locked the door of the building in which Cahall was.
The testimony as to these contentions is conflicting. If you find the testimony of said Cahall to be true, it will be your duty to render a verdict of guilty. But if you find that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant was ignorant of the fact that Cahallwas a constable, or that he held a writ of execution against him, and that he did not knowingly resist or obstruct the said Cahall in the execution of his duty as a public officer, your verdict should be not guilty.
Verdict, not guilty.