Bussey v. State
| Decision Date | 13 July 1901 |
| Citation | 64 S.W. 268,69 Ark. 545 |
| Parties | BUSSEY v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court CHARLES W. SMITH, Judge.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
On the 20th day of May, 1901, the grand jury of Ouachita county returned an indictment against Will Bussey, charging him with having, on the 16th day of the same month, committed the crime of rape upon one Clara Watson. Attorneys were appointed by the court to assist the defendant, Bussey, on his trial. The defendant, through his attorneys, asked the court to postpone the trial in order to give him time to prepare for the defense, and further, on the ground that public sentiment was so inflamed against defendant that he could not receive a fair and impartial trial at that time. This motion was overruled, and on the 21st day of May, 1901, the defendant was placed on trial. On this trial the jury were unable to agree and were discharged; and on the 24th day of the same month, defendant was re-tried before another jury, and was convicted of the crime of rape, and on the next day, after a motion for new trial had been overruled, was sentenced to be hanged. Before the sentence was carried into effect, and before a final adjournment of the court, the defendant filed a second motion for new trial on the ground that the court erred in refusing to postpone the trial, and on the ground of newly-discovered evidence that the prosecuting witness had made a written statement, sworn to by her, before the clerk of the circuit court, in which she retracted the statements made against the defendant on the trial, and admitted that those statements were false, that she had made them under coercion of her husband, and that her testimony was the result of a scheme devised and concocted by her husband to punish the defendant, Bussey. This motion was supported by the affidavit of the prosecuting witness, Clara Watson, and the affidavits of other persons. The motion was overruled and defendant appealed.
Judgment reversed.
T. W Hardy and John T. Sifford, for appellant.
George W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee.
RIDDICK, J., (after stating the facts).
The defendant in this case was tried and convicted of the crime of rape. The conviction rests almost entirely on the testimony of the prosecuting witness, Clara Watson, and the only question we need consider on this appeal is whether the circuit court erred in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence to the effect that the prosecuting witness had since the trial made a written retraction of her testimony against the defendant, and admitted that it was false, and the defendant innocent. It is now well settled that courts do not, as a rule, grant new trials on newly-discovered evidence that is merely cumulative, or that simply tends to discredit or impeach one or more of the witnesses of the adverse party. And even a confession of perjury on the part of a material witness does not necessarily call for a new trial,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...No injustice can be done upon a new trial. New trials have frequently been granted upon the showing made in this case. Bussey v. State, 69 Ark. 545, 64 S.W. 268; Mann v. State, 44 Tex. 642; Bates v. State (Miss), 32 South. 915; Dennis v. State, 103 Ind. 142, 2 N.E. 349; State v. Moberly, 12......
-
Perry v. Norris, PB-C-83-275.
...was originally viewed as being jurisdictional. See Howard v. State, supra, 58 Ark. at 229, 24 S.W. at 8-9; but cf. Bussey v. State, 69 Ark. 545, 547, 64 S.W. 268, 269 (1901) (apparently recognizing a "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception to a defective motion for a new trial based ......
-
Murchison v. State
...the essential evidence upon which the conviction rested (as was the case in Smith v. Urban). Whittaker v. State, supra; Bussey v. State, 69 Ark. 545, 64 S.W. 268. Whenever a motion for new trial is based upon a matter which requires evaluation of the fairness and impartiality of the trial o......
-
Keeter v. State
...not to grant a new trial in such a situation and that the issue of the witness' credibility should be left to a jury. Bussey v. State, 69 Ark. 545, 64 S.W. 268 (1901); People v. Smallwood, 306 Mich. 49, 10 N.W.2d 303 (1943); Commonwealth v. Mosteller, 446 Pa. 83, 284 A.2d 786 (1971); State ......