Earnest v. State
| Decision Date | 27 September 1915 |
| Docket Number | 128 |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 174,120 Ark. 148 |
| Parties | EARNEST v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Calhoun Circuit Court; C. W. Smith, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
J. S McKnight, H. S. Powell and J. R. Wilson, for appellant.
Counsel review the evidence at length and contend that it wholly fails, aside from the testimony of Harper, the alleged accomplice, to connect appellant with the commission of the crime. And Harper's testimony, uncorroborated, is not sufficient evidence upon which to base a conviction. Kirby's Dig., § 2384. The judgment should be reversed and the cause dismissed.
Wallace Davis, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.
The testimony tending to corroborate the accomplice is meager but there is some testimony of a substantial nature corroborating his testimony, namely, the testimony of the railway agent that he saw appellant near the scene of the crime on the night it was committed. Moreover appellant's story as to how he came into possession of certain groceries was flatly contradicted by the grocer from whom he claimed to have bought them. The evidence is sufficient. 109 Ark. 384.
The defendant, Albert Earnest was convicted of the crime of burglary, and appeals to this court from the judgment of conviction. The charge in the indictment is that he, together with one Jamie Oliver, broke and entered the storehouse of D R. Speer in the town of Tinsman, Calhoun County, Arkansas, with intent to commit grand larceny, and did then and there commit the offense of grand larceny by stealing merchandise consisting of three coats and six pairs of trousers, of the aggregate value of thirty-nine dollars.
The proof shows that the articles alleged to have been stolen were found, shortly after the burglary, in a hollow log about a half mile from Tinsman. One Bruce Harper gave information to the deputy sheriff as to the place where the stolen goods could be found, and confessed that he, together with Oliver and the defendant, had committed the burglary. Harper was introduced as a witness by the State and testified that he and Oliver and the defendant burglarized the house and stole the goods. He stated also that in addition to the articles mentioned in the indictment some bolts of calico were stolen and taken away by the defendant, and that the defendant stated that he was going to secrete the same under a certain church house. The bolts of calico were not found.
It is insisted by counsel for defendant that the testimony is not sufficient to support the verdict of conviction, in that the testimony of Harper, the alleged accomplice of the defendant was not corroborated. That contention must be sustained, for, after a careful analysis of the testimony, we are unable to discover any of a substantial character which tends to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice. Our statute on the subject requires that the corroboration must tend to connect ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...and it was incompetent. 88 Ark. 451; 109 Id. 130; 10 R. C. L. 959, 960, §§ 133-4; 86 Ark. 23; 204 F. 909-12-13; 227 Id. 855; 154 Id. 577; 120 Ark. 148. 4. to the insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict, see also 1 McLain, Cr. Law, § 409; 43 Mont. 31; 114 P. 112; Ann. Cas. 1912 C,......
-
Roath v. State
... ... material nature. Hudspeth v. State, 50 Ark ... 534, 9 S.W. 1; Vaughan v. State, 58 Ark ... 353, 24 S.W. 885; Scott v. State, 63 Ark ... 310, 38 S.W. 339; Cook v. State, 75 Ark ... 540, 87 S.W. 1176; Celender v. State, 86 ... Ark. 23, 109 S.W. 1024; Earnest v. State, ... 120 Ark. 148, 179 S.W. 174; Strum v. State, ... 168 Ark. 1012, 272 S.W. 359 ... It will ... be remembered that the question of an accomplice was not ... presented to the jury, but it is proper for us to consider ... this question and the nature of the evidence ... ...
- Powell v. State
-
Powell v. State
...See Scott v. State, 63 Ark. 310, 38 S. W. 339; Cook v. State, 75 Ark. 540, 87 S. W. 1176; Kennedy v. State, supra; Earnest v. State, 120 Ark. 148, 179 S. W. 174; Rogers v. State, 136 Ark. 161, 206 S. W. 152; Brown v. State, 143 Ark. 523, 222 S. W. 377; Haskin v. State, 148 Ark. 351, 230 S. ......