Dye v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1928
• Docket Number: 36
• Citation: 7 S.W.2d 2,177 Ark. 549
• Parties: DYE v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

7 S.W.2d 2

177 Ark. 549

DYE v. STATE

No. 36

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 11, 1928

Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court; J. S. Koone, Judge; affirmed.

Affirmed.

Virgil D. Willis, for appellant.

H W. Applegate, Attorney General, and Darden Moose, Assistant, for appellee.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellant was indicted, jointly with others, at the September term, 1926, of the Cleburne County Circuit Court, in an indictment containing two counts, one for possessing a still and one for making mash. At the February term, 1927, he was tried and convicted on both counts, and adjudged to serve a term of one year in the State Penitentiary on each count, from which is this appeal.

His first assignment of error for a reversal of the judgments is that the verdicts upon which same were based were contrary to the evidence. The testimony introduced by the State was, in substance, to the effect that, in the Wolf Bayou community, several miles from the town of Drasco, it was impossible to conduct Sunday-school and church without disturbances, due to the illicit manufacture and sale of whiskey; that this condition induced certain citizens to search the neighborhood for stills, and that, in making the search, they found two stills running in the neighborhood, one back of Paul Elms' and one back of W. A. Tatum's field, who were jointly indicted with appellant; that large quantities of mash and whiskey were found at each still; that, as they approached the last still, they recognized appellant and two of his associates, who immediately ran away; that some of them remained at the still while others went to notify the sheriff to come to the scene; that, while waiting at the still for the sheriff to come, appellant and five companions, jointly indicted with him, returned, cursed them and told them that what was in the woods belonged to them; that thereupon they withdrew some 200 yards, and were followed by appellant, who had a gun.

Appellant interposed an alibi as a defense, and introduced six witnesses, who testified that he was at Drasco, working upon his car, at the time the citizens made the search for illicit stills. Appellant argues that he established an alibi by six witnesses, which necessarily destroys the integrity of the theory of the State that he was present at the still when discovered by the searching party. The conflicting testimony made an issue for the jury. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be attached to their testimony was purely a question for determination by the jury. The verdict indicates that the jury believed the witnesses introduced by the State and disbelieved those introduced by appellant to establish an alibi, and, as there is sufficient substantial evidence in the testimony introduced...