Clack v. State
| Decision Date | 14 June 1948 |
| Docket Number | 4506 |
| Parties | Clack v. State |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Dexter Bush, Judge.
Affirmed.
C R. Huie and John H. Wright, for appellant.
Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Two informations were filed against appellant, each charging him with the commission of the crime of carnal abuse, and by consent they were tried together. In one information, it was charged that appellant carnally knew one Linnie Sue Dixon, a female under the age of sixteen years, and in the other it was charged that he carnally knew one Clara Jean Clack, a female under that age. These girls are the daughters of Bertha Perry and appellant admitted that Clara Jean was his illegitimate daughter, but he was not the father of Linnie Sue.
All the parties lived in Arkadelphia, and Bertha went from there to the State of Washington. She left both of her children in appellant's home and it was during her absence in Washington that the crimes were committed according to the testimony of the girls. Appellant was found guilty under both informations and given the minimum sentence in each case.
The State's case depended upon the testimony of the two girls, and there was no corroboration of their testimony, except that each girl corroborated the other. However, as they were not accomplices, no corroboration of their testimony was required to sustain the convictions. Bond v. State, 63 Ark. 504, 39 S.W. 554, 58 Am. St. Rep. 129; Waterman v. State, 202 Ark. 934, 154 S.W.2d 813. Doctors testified that neither girl was a virgin.
The sufficiency of the testimony is not questioned, except that it is argued that their testimony is improbable and unreasonable, but the truth thereof was of course a question for the jury. The cause was submitted under instructions of which no complaint is made.
After the submission of the case to the jury the record recites:
"Thereupon, the jury, after hearing the instructions of the court, and the argument of counsel for both the State and the defendant, retired to consider of its verdicts, and subsequently reported to the court that the jury was deadlocked, and the court upon questioning the jury as to how they stood numerically, asked if there was anything in the evidence or the instructions of the court about which they disagreed, and informed the jury that the evidence could be read to them or the instructions read, which inquiry elicited the following question from a member of the jury:
(At this juncture of the case, the court conferred with counsel for the State and counsel for the defendant, and after consulting with them, made the following remarks to the jury -- the reporter's record does not reflect the statements in the conference, but at request of the attorney for the defendant, Mr. Wright, the remarks of the court to the jury were taken -- Steno's note.)
By the Court: "Gentlemen, we will tell you how it happened. The attorneys have agreed that here is the way it got to the sheriff. The girl reported it to the pastor of the church. Now, that is in evidence. This is in addition -- in the way of an additional report. The pastor wrote a letter to the girl's mother in Washington. The girl's mother went to the Welfare Department in the State of Washington. The Welfare Department in Washington wrote to the Welfare Department here, and the Welfare Department here reported it to the sheriff.
By Mr. Wright: "Save our exceptions.
"The jury, thereupon retired to consider of its verdict, and subsequently returned into court the verdicts as shown by the transcript of the clerk of the Clark Circuit Court, to which this record is attached."
As appears from the language just quoted, the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...withdraw the consent, a party is in no position to complain of an error he permitted the court to make without objection. Clack v. State, 213 Ark. 652, 212 S.W.2d 20. We feel that the failure of the State to object when defendant's request was made at least a silent acquiescence in the proc......
-
Smith v. State
...for counsel cannot consent that the trial judge take some action and then seek a reversal on the basis of that action. Clack v. State, 213 Ark. 652, 212 S.W.2d 20 (1948). A third argument is that the appellant did not voluntarily consent to the search of the trunk of his car. The substitute......
-
Clack v. State, 4506.
...212 S.W.2d 20 CLACK v. STATE. No. Supreme Court of Arkansas. June 14, 1948. Appeal from Circuit Court, Clark County; Dexter Bush, Judge. James Austin Clack was convicted under two informations of the offenses of carnal abuse, and he appeals. Judgments affirmed. C. R. Huie and John H. Wright......
-
Powell v. State
...was necessary. See Bond v. State, 63 Ark. 504, 39 S.W. 554; Waterman v. State, 202 Ark. 934, 154 S.W.2d 813; and Clack v. State, 213 Ark. 652, 212 S.W.2d 20. Arkansas Statutes, § 41-118 provides that: 'The distinction between principals and accessories before the fact is hereby abolished, a......