Burnside v. State, 4671
Decision Date | 26 November 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 4671,4671 |
Citation | 219 Ark. 596,243 S.W.2d 736 |
Parties | BURNSIDE et al. v. STATE. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Sam Montgomery, North Little Rock, for appellants.
Ike Murry, Atty. Gen., Dowell Anders, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
A jury found appellants guilty of 'keeping a gaming device under § 41-2003,' Ark.Stats.1947, and assessed a fine of $100.00 against each appellant. From the judgment is this appeal.
For reversal, appellants make but one contention, and that is that the evidence was not substantial and sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the judgment rendered. We hold that appellants are correct in this contention.
The charge here being a misdemeanor, appellants in electing to argue but the one point have waived all other assignments of errors in their motion for a new trial. Branton v. State, 214 Ark. 861, 218 S.W.2d 690.
The essential facts appear not to be in dispute.
On the night of March 10, 1951, appellants, Kay and Honeycutt, were arrested by Little Rock Police and says the State:
'At the same time and place, Lieutenant Kerr confiscated from the car of one George Foster, certain electrical equipment, to wit: a tape recorder, a ticker or teletype machine and a radio transmitter.
John Bailey testified:
Officer Haynie testified: and Officer, Potts, testified: The record clearly shows that Officer Potts' testimony relates to an intended use rather than a past use.
It is conceded tht the equipment here involved was not a gaming device per se, but the State earnestly argues that 'it is not necessary that the illegal use be actually undertaken but that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. State
...to the gambling equipment, as we feel that a clear case for the jury was made by the State. Appellants rely on Burnside, Kay and Honeycutt v. State, 219 Ark. 596, 243 S.W.2d 736, in which we reversed a conviction where the evidence involved consisted of a tape recorder, a ticker or teletype......
-
State v. 26 Gaming Machines
...court erroneously misconstrued its expert's testimony. The State also argues that the circuit court's reliance on Burnside v. State, 219 Ark. 596, 243 S.W.2d 736 (1951), was misplaced, because unlike the Burnside facts, where the equipment in question did not constitute gaming devices per s......
-
State v. 26 Gaming Machines, 03-173 (Ark. 2/10/2004)
...court erroneously misconstrued its expert's testimony. The State also argues that the circuit court's reliance on Burnside v. State, 219 Ark. 596, 243 S.W.2d 736 (1951), was misplaced, because unlike the Burnside facts, where the equipment in question did not constitute gaming devices per s......
-
Blankenship v. State
...a gambling house or was interested in its operation. See Bostic v. City of Little Rock, 241 Ark. 671, 409 S.W.2d 825; Burnside v. State, 219 Ark. 596, 243 S.W.2d 736; Albright v. Muncrief, The state relies upon Flaherty v. State, 255 Ark. 187, 500 S.W.2d 87, but this case differs from that ......