Crosby v. State
Decision Date | 29 May 1922 |
Docket Number | 23 |
Parties | CROSBY v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court, Dene H. Coleman, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
G A. Hillhouse and Gustave Jones, for appellant.
J S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and Wm. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.
WOOD J. MCCULLOCH C. J., dissenting.
1. Appellant was indicted for the crime of selling and being interested in the sale of intoxicating liquors. He demurred to the indictment on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction because the 18th amendment to the Federal Constitution and the Federal statute (Volstead act) superseded the State law under which appellant was indicted. The court overruled the demurrer.
This court, after an exhaustive review of the authorities upon the subject, has decided the precise question in the recent case of Alexander v. State, 148 Ark. 491, 230 S.W. 548, holding that the 18th amendment and the Volstead act "did not impair the integrity of any existing State statute to enforce prohibition, nor interfere with the enactment of any future legislation by the State for that purpose." This means, of course, that the State statute prohibiting the sale of liquor is not repealed or superseded by the 18th amendment or the Volstead act; for, if this amendment and this act superseded the State statute prohibiting the sale of liquor, then the integrity of such statute is not only impaired but destroyed. In Alexander v. State, supra, we concluded that the statute under which the appellant was convicted "is a valid and subsisting law." We adhere to that decision.
2. Witness Smith was called as a witness for the State and testified that he never purchased any whiskey from the appellant on the 10th of September, 1921, or at any other time within three years before the filing of the indictment. The witness was handed a statement purporting to be his testimony taken before the grand jury, and he testified that he signed the statement; that he read the same or it was read to him before he signed it. The witness stated that he testified before the grand jury that three or four years ago he bought some whiskey from the appellant, but that he did not buy any whiskey from him on the 10th of September, 1921. Thereupon, the record shows the following occurred: By the court: (To which action, ruling and statements on the part of the prosecuting attorney and on the part of the court, in the presence and hearing of the jury, the defendant at the time excepted, and asked that his exceptions be noted of record, which is accordingly done).
The bill of exceptions further recites as follows: "And thereupon, during the closing argument of the prosecuting attorney, Hugh U. Williamson, and after the defendant's counsel had made their argument to the jury, Mr. Williamson, the prosecuting attorney, stated to the jury among other things in his argument, as follows: 'Here is Mr. Crosby, he has been engaged in selling liquor out there for a good while, for a long time, and he has gotten caught."
Objection by counsel for the defendant to the above statement, and counsel for defendant requests the court to instruct the jury not to consider such argument, and to rebuke the prosecuting attorney for making such statement. Which the court fails to do, but remarks: 'The jury will have to be the judges of the evidence.' (To which refusal of the court to so instruct the jury and to rebuke the prosecuting attorney, the defendant at the time excepted and asked that his exceptions be noted of record, which is accordingly done). And thereupon, during the further argument, in closing for the State and when the defendant had no opportunity for reply, the prosecuting attorney, among other things, stated to the jury as follows: 'You can see the straits the defendant has gone to when you saw the old man Smith perjure himself here.' Objection by counsel for defendant to the above argument by the prosecuting attorney sustained by the court, and the court told the jury that the above was improper argument on the part of the prosecuting attorney. (But owing to the prejudicial nature of such argument, regardless of the court's ruling and instruction to the jury, the defendant desires to except to the argument, and asks that his exceptions be noted of record, which is accordingly done).
Section 23 of article 7 of our Constitution provides that "judges shall not charge juries with regard to matters of fact, but shall declare the law." C. & M. Digest, p. 79. This is a mandatory provision of the Constitution, and the numerous cases of this court collated by the digesters under the above section show how important it is in the administration of justice under our juridical system that trial judges observe the above mandate of the Constitution. Excerpts from one or two of the cases will suffice to show what the mind of the court has been, and still is, upon the above provision, and that any departure from it by trial judges must inevitably result in a reversal of their judgements.
In State v. Wardlaw, 43 Ark. 73, Justice SMITH, speaking for the court, said:
Judge BATTLE, speaking for the court, in the case of Sharp v. State, 51 Ark. 147, 10 S.W. 228, said:
In Catlett v. Ry., 57 Ark. 461 at 461-466, 21 S.W. 1062, Chief Justice COCKRILL, speaking for the court, said:
In the recent case of Martin v. State, 130 Ark 442, 197 S.W. 861, a witness whose testimony tended to prove that the appellant was not guilty of the crime charged was arrested in the presence and hearing of the jury, by order of the court directing the sheriff to take charge of the witness and hold him to bail in the sum of $ 500 to answer the charge of giving away whiskey, etc. This court held that the conduct of the court constituted prejudicial error, and we quoted from the case of Golden v. State, 75 Miss. 130, 21 So. 971, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. State
...the judgment must be reversed on account of such ruling, unless it affirmatively appears that there was a no prejudice.' Crosby v. State, 154 Ark. 20, 241 S.W. 380, 382. We cannot conscientiously and sincerely say that the court's admonition eliminated the possibility that prejudice to Moor......
-
Vowell v. State
...prejudice. Of course, the rule is that prejudice is presumed from an error unless the contrary affirmatively appears, Crosby v. State, 154 Ark. 20, 241 S.W. 380 (1922). Furthermore, since the State here exercised 4 of its 6 and the appellant 5 of his 8 peremptory challenges on the first 12 ......
-
Benton v. State
...Primmer, 69 Wash. 400, 125 P. 158; Golden v. State, 75 Miss. 130, 21 So. 971; Lile v. State, 186 Ark. 483, 54 S.W.2d 293; Crosby v. State, 154 Ark. 20, 241 S.W. 380; Talliaferro v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 57, 200 P. State v. Swink, 151 N.C. 726, 66 S.E. 448, 19 Ann.Cas. 422; Caruth v. State, 77 T......
- Crosby v. State