67 S.W.2d 191 (Ark. 1933), Crim. 3864, Hudspeth v. State
|Docket Nº:||Crim. 3864|
|Citation:||67 S.W.2d 191, 188 Ark. 323|
|Opinion Judge:||MEHAFFY, J.|
|Party Name:||HUDSPETH v. STATE|
|Attorney:||Edward H. Coulter, for appellant. Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Robert F. Smith, Assistant, for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||MEHAFFY, J. HUMPHREYS, J., concurs in opinion, but dissents from reducing punishment.|
|Case Date:||December 04, 1933|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Arkansas|
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court; J. F. Koone, Judge; modified and affirmed.
[188 Ark. 324]
The appellant, managing officer of the Citizens' Bank & Trust Company at Harrison, Arkansas, was indicted by the grand jury on a charge of knowingly accepting deposits in the Citizens' Bank & Trust Company of Harrison, while said institution was in an insolvent condition. He was also indicted on numerous other charges growing out of the bank failure. His son, also an official in the bank, was indicted, as were several other officers of the banks, both in Boone County and in other counties.
At the July term, 1932, of the Boone Circuit
Court, appellant filed his verified petition for a change of venue. The petition was in proper form, and supported by the affidavits of seven persons, each of whom stated that he was a qualified elector; was an actual resident of Boone County; not related to the defendant; that he had read the petition for a change of venue, and was familiar with the facts therein contained, and that he believed the statements to be true.
The petition for a change of venue was overruled without any evidence being taken. Thereafter appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of receiving deposits in an insolvent bank, and the cause was continued until the January, 1933, term. At the July, 1933, term, appellant filed his verified petition for permission to withdraw his plea of guilty theretofore entered, and stated that, after the court had overruled his motion for [188 Ark. 325] change of venue, he was approached by the officers of the court for a compromise of all the cases, those against himself, and other officers of the bank at Harrison, and the banks elsewhere. He alleged that an agreement was made between the prosecuting attorney, the court, and appellant, to the effect that all the indictments except the one in this cause should be dismissed against all the defendants upon appellant's payment of costs in each action, including a prosecuting attorney's fee of $ 25 in each ease; that no further indictments or prosecutions would be instituted in the judicial...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP