Chapline v. State

• Decision Date: 13 January 1906
• Citation: 95 S.W. 477,77 Ark. 444
• Parties: CHAPLINE v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

95 S.W. 477

77 Ark. 444

CHAPLINE v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 13, 1906

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; EDWARD W. WINFIELD, Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

J. W. & M. House, M. J. Manning, Trimble, Robinson & Trimble, and Murphy & Lewis, for appellant.

1. The conspiracy, and that appellant was a party thereto, should first have been proved, before the acts and declarations of Mayberry and Cook were admissible. 1 Greenleaf on Ev. (15 Ed.), §§ 111, 112; 16 Cyc. 982, 983; 110 Ill. 47; 104 Ind. 70; 51 Iowa 596; 23 Me. 69; 53 Am. Dec. 134; 12 N.J.Eq. 108; 95 N.C. 377; 9 Humph. 750; 28 Tex. 759; 5 Tex 211; 6 Whart. 169; 10 Serg. & R. 75; 20 Cent. Dig. Tit. Ev 815; 20 Ark. 216; 13 Ark. 236; 19 Ia. 517; 122 Mass. 43; 12 Cush. 84; 30 Miss. 656; 92 N.C. 732; 34 Tex.Crim. 424; 28 Tex.App. 189; 8 Cyc. 680.

2. The evidence was not sufficient to connect the appellant with a conspiracy, or to establish the existence of a conspiracy.

Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, and Lewis Rhoton, for appellee.

1. A prima facie case of conspiracy was made out, and this was all that was necessary in order to admit the acts and declarations of co-conspirators. If on the whole testimony it is shown that the conspiracy actually existed, a conviction will be sustained. 105 Cal. 262; 38 P. 720; 122 Ill. 1; 17 Kan. 298; 60 F. 890, 898; 8 Cyc. 677, et seq.; 59 Ark. 422.

J. W. & M. House, M. J. Manning, Trimble, Robinson & Trimble, and Murphy & Lewis, for appellant in reply.

True, the act or declaration of one conspirator is considered the act or declaration of all, when said or done in furtherance of the common object, but the conspiracy must first be established by evidence aliunde. 59 Ark. 422.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

The grand jury of Pulaski County, at the March, 1905, term of the circuit court, returned an indictment for conspiracy against George F. Chapline, charging that he and M. D. L. Cook, "in the county of Pulaski and State of Arkansas, on the 25th day of April, 1905, unlawfully combined, conspired, agreed and confederated together, each with the other, to commit the crime of bribery by delivering and paying to senators and representatives who were then and there duly elected, qualified and acting as senators and representatives in the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, then and there in session, and whose names were unknown to the grand jurors, $ 1,400, lawful money of the United States, gold, silver and paper money, of the value of $ 1,400, as, for and by way of a bribe to influence the said senators and representatives, in their official capacity as such senators and representatives, to vote for a bill then and there pending in said General Assembly, being House Bill No. 135, providing for the creation of the Cache River Levee District and the incorporation of a board of directors for said district, and in pursuance of said unlawful combination, confederation and conspiracy induced one A. F. Mayberry, to put up and place in escrow with one Oscar Davis checks and drafts to the amount and of the value of $ 1,475 with the understanding between the said A. F. Mayberry and them, and Cook, that the said checks and drafts should be cashed, and the money therefor, the sum of $ 1,475, lawful money of the United States, gold, silver and paper money of the value of $ 1,475, should be delivered to them, defendant and said Cook, to be by them paid to the said senators and representatives, as, for and by way of a bribe, for the purpose of influencing the vote and decision of said senators and representatives upon said bill; that defendant and said Cook did not commit said crime of bribery by paying said sum of money or any part of it to the said senators and representatives, or any of them, for and by way of bribes, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas."

The jury impaneled in the case returned a verdict against the defendant, and assessed his punishment at a fine of twenty-five dollars, and he appealed.

The evidence adduced in the trial, and sustaining the verdict, tended to prove, substantially, the following facts:

In March, 1905, there was a bill, known as the "Cache River Levee Bill," pending in the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas. On the 11th of March, 1905, it was read in the house the third time, and failed to pass, and a motion to reconsider was made. The defendant, Chapline, was a member of the House, representing Monroe County.

When the motion for reconsideration was pending, N. Perkins, W. B. Williams, A. F. Mayberry, Robinson, Galloway, and other citizens interested in the bill came to Little Rock to see what could be done. It was agreed between them that Mayberry should take a room in the Capital Hotel, in that city, where the friends of the bill could assemble for the purpose of consultation, which he did. A meeting was held in the room, and many were present, among the number those named and the appellant. It continued about two hours. They discussed the merits of the bill. Appellant said "it would require some money to get it through--he thought about $ 1,000;" and said something about surveying and other expenses. He said it could be placed where it could be used to the best advantage. He was emphatic in saying that he was not to receive a cent of it. He suggested that they select some man to take charge of it. Mayberry was selected. He then said he would put him in touch with a man who would help him. He had a roll of the House and Senate. "He looked over it, called the names of those he had influence with," and marked the names of those with whom he had no influence with a pencil, and said some one who had would have to to go and see them, and they would have to get a lobbyist. M. D. L. Cook was then a reputed lobbyist. Mayberry was to employ the man to assist them in securing the passage of the bill. The sum of one thousand dollars was to be raised, and it was not to be paid until the bill became a law. The next morning, at the Capital Hotel, "appellant waited for some one, he said, * * * who had not come in." He went to the State House, and looked over the lobby, and said to Mayberry that he was looking for another party, but had not seen him. At noon, when he and Mayberry were talking at the hotel, Cook came along, and appellant stopped him, and introduced him to Mayberry. After this he said nothing more about being unable to find that party. When he introduced them, he said: "This is Mr. Mayberry, Mr. Cook," and Mayberry said to Cook, "You are the man I think I want to see," and they walked off, and had a conversation. Mayberry told him what they wanted, and asked him "if he knew everybody, members of the Legislature," telling him of "their" condition, that "they" were strangers, and stating "their" case. Cook then said, "I know nearly all of them, though I am not a member of the Legislature, nor a citizen of Little Rock." Mayberry told him what had occurred at their meeting as to the money, and he (Cook) said he would see what could be done. Mayberry testified: "My recollection is that I was lamenting that he had to get up the money, saying it was unjust, and he said nearly all of these important bills are passed with the use of money. * * * I told him what we could do, and he said it would take at least $ 1,500." In a subsequent conversation, after the money was raised, Cook said to Mayberry: "He would be better satisfied to have the money where he could use it, instead of in my possession at Cotton Plant. Some one suggested that we leave it here in Little Rock, which I told him I would do, but that it would be subject to my order, and if the bill did not become a law, I would return it. I do not remember whether the suggestion was from Mr. Cook or Mr. Robinson. One of them suggested Oscar Davis, and I said he was satisfactory. Robinson and I went down there and I gave Davis one check, and Robinson gave him one, with instructions that they were to be paid out to such parties and at such times as I should name. Cook was not with us. He came in afterwards. I think we told him that we had given Mr. Davis the checks, and that he said it was all right."

The money was to be paid to Cook when the bill became a law. It passed the Legislature, and was vetoed by the Governor; and Davis returned the money to those who paid it.

Williams, who was present at the meeting in Mayberry's room in the hotel, testified in the progress of the trial of this cause, in response to interrogatories, over the objections of appellant, as follows: After testifying as to what occurred at this meeting, he was asked:

"Q. You stated that it was not called for that purpose. I will ask you if, before you left, it didn't change into a meeting the purpose of which was the raising of this money? Was it not apparent that it was for corrupting purposes, and didn't you decline to put up any money for that purpose? I will ask you if it didn't become a meeting for the purpose of raising a fund for corruption?

"A. It was not mentioned as a corruption fund. The question of raising some money to promote the interests of the bill was discussed.

"Q. Didn't you refuse to put up the money because, as you stated to them, it could be for nothing else but a corruption fund, and didn't you so state in Chapline's presence?

"A. Chapline was present during a part of the meeting.

"Q. While he was there, did you decline to go on, or to participate further in it, because, as you stated to them, it could only be for a corruption fund?

"A. Yes; I made that statement to them."

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION.

"Q. What did defendant say when you made that statement?

"A. My recollection is that he said it is not to be used to buy members of the Legislature--that it was to be used as an...