Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 1918 |
| Docket Number | 354 |
| Citation | 203 S.W. 1031,134 Ark. 597 |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Arthur Cobb and Richard Ryan, for appellant.
John D Arbuckle, Attorney General, and T. W. Campbell, Assistant for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor.
The first assignment of error urged here for reversal of the judgment relates to the ruling of the court in refusing to grant a continuance. The continuance was asked on account of the absence of certain witnesses, and for the further reasons that appellant's mother was "sick and under the care of his father, and that "in addition to the above sickness, the defendant's baby, who is ten months old, is very sick and suffering with a rising in the head, and that the defendant is in no mental condition or state of mind on account of said sickness to go to trial or properly advise with his attorneys." A reversal is not urged on the ground of the absence of witnesses, but it is insisted that the court ought to have granted a continuance on account of the illness of appellant's mother and baby. It does not appear from the record that any testimony was introduced on the motion to show the extent of the illness of appellant's mother and baby, so we are unable to determine whether or not the court abused its discretion in refusing to postpone the trial on that account.
The next assignment urged is that the court erred in refusing to grant a change of venue. The motion for change of venue was presented with supporting affidavits of eight persons, all of whom were examined orally before the court. The testimony given on the examination disclosed the fact that none of the affiants had any general knowledge as to the state of mind of the inhabitants of the whole country, and their information was confined to a very limited portion of the county, practically to one township. We can not say that the court was not justified in finding that the persons who made the affidavits were not credible persons within the meaning of the statute.
It is next insisted that the court erred in holding that A. T. Moody, a talesman, was a competent juror, but it does not appear from the record that appellant exhausted the peremptory challenges allowed under the statute, and that assignment of error is not available. After ten jurors had been accepted by both sides, appellant asked that permission of the court be given to reconsider the acceptance of the jurors and to peremptorily challenge one of the jurors already accepted, but the court refused to permit it to be done. No reason was offered for the exercise of the challenge at that particular time, and it was a matter within the sound discretion of the court to determine whether or not one of the parties at that stage of the proceedings should be permitted to exercise the right of challenge. Allen v. State, 70 Ark. 337, 68 S.W. 28.
The next ground urged for reversal is that the court erred in refusing to allow testimony to be adduced tending to show declarations or statements made by a certain person, Williams by name, alleged to have been made "immediately prior" to the sale of whiskey charged to have been made by appellant. The circumstances under which the sale of whiskey was made by appellant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v. State
...of the inhabitants of the whole county or that they are cognizant of prejudice existing throughout the whole county. Brown v. State, 134 Ark. 597, 203 S.W. 1031 (1918); Davis v. State, 155 Ark. 247, 244 S.W. 750 (1922); Bailey v. State, 204 Ark. 376, 163 S.W.2d 141 (1942); Hill v. State, 27......
-
Lauderdale v. State
...is necessary that at least two of the affiants or witnesses know the state of mind of the inhabitants of the whole county. Brown v. State, 134 Ark. 597, 203 S.W. 1031. The court held in the Brown case that if a witness was not acquainted with the sentiment over the county generally, the tri......
-
Snell v. State
...as lacking in credibility within the meaning of the statute. Jordan v. State, 141 Ark. 504, 217 S.W. 788 (1920); Brown v. State, 134 Ark. 597, 203 S.W. 1031 (1918); and Dewein v. State, 120 Ark. 302, 179 S.W. 346 Appellant urges that in Rush v. State, 238 Ark. 149, 379 S.W.2d 29 (1964), whe......
-
Brust v. State
... ... record failed to show any reason for challenging the juror ... after he had been selected and accepted, no error was ... committed in refusing to allow the defendant to challenge the ... juror. And, as the record now before us is in similar ... condition, the same rule must be applied. Brown v ... State, 134 Ark. 597, 203 S.W. 1031; Temple ... v. State, 126 Ark. 290, 189 S.W. 855 ... The ... record shows that the court exercised its discretion to keep ... the jury together in charge of sworn officers from the time ... the jury was sworn on the 15th of December ... ...