Bowlin v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | 124 |
| Citation | 1 S.W.2d 553,175 Ark. 1115 |
| Parties | BOWLIN v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court; J. T. Bullock, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Jesse Reynolds, for appellant.
H W. Applegate, Attorney General, and John L Carter, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary on a charge of assault with intent to kill one Joe Bramlett, and prosecutes this appeal to reverse the judgment and sentence against him. This was done at an adjourned term of the regular May term of the Johnson Circuit Court.
It is admitted that the testimony was sufficient to take the case to the jury, but it is urged: first, that the court was without jurisdiction to try the case and render judgment against him, for the reason that, according to the affidavits of the county and circuit clerks, there were no funds on hand to pay the expenses of holding the adjourned term of the circuit court, and that the regular business of the court carried over from the regular term to the adjourned term was not tried, but that this defendant, who was indicted at the adjourned term, and some others, were tried at this term of court; that there were no funds with which to pay the jurors, and that this defendant was forced to be tried before jurors who volunteered their services for that purpose. It is claimed that, by reason of this fact, he had no voice in the selection of the jury, and that a court so constituted was and could be no more than a moot court.
The record shows that this question was raised for the first time in the motion for a new trial. The statute provides for the manner of the selection of jurors to try cases in the circuit court. By going to trial without objecting to the manner in which the jury was impaneled, appellant must be deemed to have waived any irregularities in the order of selecting the jury. In support of this contention he cites the case of Dixie Culvert Mfg. Co. v. Perry County, 174 Ark. 107, 294 S.W. 381, Amendment No. 11, in which it was held that the county judge of Perry County was without authority, under that amendment, to make a contract for road culverts and spread the cost thereof over a period of years, when there was insufficient funds on hand for the year in which same were purchased to pay therefor. It had nothing to do with the question now before us. See also Polk County v. Mena Star Co., ante p. 76.
It is next urged that the case should be reversed for certain remarks made by the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement to the jury. An objection by counsel for appellant was sustained by the court, and the prosecuting attorney withdrew the remarks from the jury. There was therefore nothing on which to base this assignment of error. The objection was sustained and the remarks withdrawn by the prosecuting attorney. Lewis v. State, 78 Ark. 40, 93 S.W. 55; Hall v. State, 113 Ark. 454, 168 S.W. 1122.
It is finally insisted that the court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to ask the appellant the following questions over his objections:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ham v. State
... ... defendant as a witness. But the court also said that the ... defendant answered the question in the negative, and no ... prejudice could have resulted to him from the question when ... it was considered in connection with the answer ... Bowlin v. State, 175 Ark. 1047, 1 S.W.2d ... In the ... instant case, no prejudice could have resulted, because the ... witness answered the question in the negative. But there was ... no error anyway, because it was proper on cross-examination ... as affecting his credibility ... ...
-
Ham v. State
...regardless of time, for the purpose of testing their credibility." Du Val & Rice v. State, 171 Ark. 68, 283 S. W. 23; Bowlin v. State, 175 Ark. 1115, 1 S.W.(2d) 553; Barron v. State, 155 Ark. 80, 244 S. W. 331; Groning v. State, 155 Ark. 85, 243 S. W. 959; Lewis v. State, 155 Ark. 205, 244 ......
-
Petty v. State, 5374
...State, 139 Ark. 15, 212 S.W. 93; Stanley v. State, 174 Ark. 743, 297 S.W. 826; Adams v. State, 176 Ark. 916, 5 S.W.2d 946; Bowlin v. State, 175 Ark. 1115, 1 S.W.2d 553.' We find no abuse of discretion in this At to his second point, appellant objects to the trial court's action in submittin......
-
Shackleford v. State
... ... trouble with the Hattabaughs. Upon objection, the court held ... that the witness could answer whether he had any liquor ... This ... testimony was competent, as affecting the credibility of the ... witness. In the recent case of Jim Bowlin v ... State, 175 Ark. 1115, 1 S.W.2d 553, where the ... assignment of error was that the court had erred in ... permitting the prosecuting attorney to ask the appellant, on ... cross-examination, if he was the same Jim Bowlin that had ... been sent to the penitentiary from Newton County for ... ...