Edwards v. State
| Decision Date | 27 September 1926 |
| Docket Number | 144 |
| Citation | 286 S.W. 935,171 Ark. 778 |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court; James H. McCollum, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
W. K Oldham, Jr., for appellant.
H. W Applegate, Attorney General, and Darden Moose, Assistant, for appellee.
Ray Edwards prosecutes this appeal to reverse the judgment of conviction against him for the crime of burglary and grand larceny.
The first assignment of error is that the court erred in not sustaining the defendant's motion to quash the indictment. The ground upon which this motion is predicated is that J. W. Butler, who was a member of the grand jury which indicted him, was indorsed on the indictment as a witness for the State, and was cashier of the bank which was charged to have been burglarized. The record shows that the defendant was in the courtroom when the grand jury was impaneled, and was afforded an opportunity to challenge any member of the panel, but did not do so. Section 3005 of Crawford & Moses' Digest provides, in effect, that every person held to answer a criminal charge may object to the competency of any one summoned as a grand juror for certain specified causes; and this court has held that, upon his failure to do so, he cannot raise the objection upon appeal. Hudspeth v. State, 50 Ark. 534, 9 S.W. 1; Baker v. State, 58 Ark. 513, 25 S.W. 603; and Fox v. State, 122 Ark. 197, 182 S.W. 906.
It is next contended by counsel for the defendant that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the indictment. Two counts are contained in the indictment--one for burglary, and the other for grand larceny. The count for burglary charges that the defendant unlawfully and feloniously did break and enter the house of the Washington State Bank, with the unlawful intent to commit a felony, namely, grand larceny, by stealing and carrying away the personal property of said bank. It is contended that the indictment is defective because it does not describe the particular goods which the defendant intended to steal nor allege their value. This court has expressly held that, in indictments for burglary with the intent to commit larceny, it is not necessary to specify the particular goods which the defendant intended to steal, and said that such want of specification would not prevent a plea of former acquittal or conviction. Davis and Thomas v. State, 117 Ark. 296, 174 S.W. 567. For like reason, it is sufficient to allege that the defendant intended to commit grand larceny, which is a felony under our statute; and the indictment need not allege the value of the goods intended to be stolen.
It is next contended by counsel for the defendant that the trial court erred in not requiring the prosecuting attorney to furnish the defendant with a bill of particulars. There is no statutory provision requiring the prosecuting attorney to furnish the defendant with a bill of particulars, and such practice does not obtain in this State. Under our criminal code, the proceedings of the grand jury are required to be kept secret, but the minutes of the proceedings and the evidence kept by the grand jury may be delivered to the prosecuting attorney, but he is not required to disclose the same to the defendant.
The next assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to postpone the trial for a few hours until some of the defendant's witnesses arrived. The record shows that one of the parties engaged in the burglary was a witness for the State, and testified that the bank was burglarized by himself, the defendant, and two other persons, acting together. The defendant interposed the defense of an alibi. Joe Mayfield had testified for the State that he was wounded while escaping after the bank robbery, and that the defendant had accompanied him to Little Rock and was present when he was treated by two physicians. The defendant claimed that he could prove by these physicians that he was not present on the occasion in question. The defendant claimed that he could also prove by the other absent witness that he was in Fort Smith, Arkansas, at the time of the burglary. The bank was entered on December 16, 1925, and the defendant was arrested in a few days, charged with having committed the burglary. An indictment was returned against him and Joe Mayfield, jointly, on the 8th day of April, 1926. The trial was commenced on the 14th day of April, 1926. The defendant announced ready for trial without the presence of the witnesses above named. If he intended to interpose the defense of an alibi, he should not have announced ready for trial until his witnesses to establish such defense were present. The defendant claims that he was surprised at Joe Mayfield testifying for the State and implicating him in the robbery. The indictment which was served upon the defendant informed him that Joe Mayfield was jointly indicted with him, and this put him upon notice that Joe Mayfield might testify that he was present and assisting in the burglary, if such was the fact. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in refusing to postpone the trial of the case.
The next assignment of error is that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support the verdict. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts.
J. W. Butler was a witness for the State. According to his testimony, the Washington State Bank was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McGuire
...In other States, the ordinary rule is that the existence of a corporation may be shown by direct parol evidence. (E.G., Edwards v. State, 171 Ark. 778, 286 S.W. 935, 937; Osby v. State, 229 Miss. 660, 91 So.2d 748, 749; State v. Taylor, (Mo.) 274 S.W. 47, 49; McCue v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 6......
-
Walker v. State, 5186
...788 (1953); Marks v. State, 192 Ark. 881, 95 S.W.2d 634 (1936); Adams v. State, 176 Ark. 916, 5 S.W.2d 946 (1928), and Edwards v. State, 171 Ark. 778, 286 S.W. 935 (1926). We therefore find no merit in appellant's contentions under Point No. Point No. 7--Denying defendant's motion to quash ......
-
Bishop v. State, CR
...descriptive of legislative intent. We are thus relegated to the traditional meaning of the word "confession." In Edwards v. State, 171 Ark. 778, 286 S.W. 935 (1926), the defendant told his wife, in the presence of a deputy sheriff to go out and borrow more money because when he got out of j......
-
State v. Cooper
... ... that this statute which requires that both parties serve a ... list of witnesses, is designed to protect both parties from ... surprise. However, the fact that two defendants are jointly ... charged is notice to each that the other may become a ... witness. Edwards v. State, 171 Ark. 778, 286 S.W ... 935. That the witness may be hostile is not the kind of ... surprise contemplated by the statute. See also State v ... Everitt, 14 Wash. 574, 45 P. 150; State v ... McGonigle, 14 Wash. 594, 45 P. 20. In State v ... Gaines, ... ...