French v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | Crim. 3839 |
| Citation | 62 S.W.2d 976,187 Ark. 782 |
| Parties | FRENCH v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court; John L. Bledsoe, Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The grand jury of Fulton County on February 28, 1933, returned into open court an indictment charging appellant with committing the offense of "unlawfully and feloniously keeping in their possession a still and still worm." On March 1st appellant filed his motion for continuance in which he set forth that Bob Hightower upon whom service had been had as a witness was sick and unable to attend; that, if said witness were present, he would testify that the still alleged to have been found in his possession was one half mile away on Government land, and that such testimony could not be proved by any other witness. This motion was overruled by the trial court, and appellant on the same day was placed upon trial for said offense, and the testimony was to the following effect:
That the sheriff of Fulton County and certain deputies went to appellant's home on February 23, 1933, and found 10 gallons of liquor, and they also found a still down in the field with the exception of the worm; that no one was in the actual possession of the still at the time it was found; that the still had been operated about 200 yards from appellant's house; that the still was a complete one except the worm had been removed, and that the worm is an essential part of the still. Appellant testified that he had no knowledge of the still nor any interest therein. One Oris Flynn, who was jointly indicted with appellant, also testified and corroborated appellant's testimony. One John Rogers testified that he knew the place where the still was found by the officers, and that it is one-half mile from appellant's home.
On the above testimony the jury returned a verdict of guilty against the appellant, and this appeal is prosecuted to reverse that judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Oscar E. Ellis, for appellant.
Hal L Norwood, Attorney General, and Pat Mehaffy, Assistant, for appellee.
JOHNSON, C. J., (after stating the facts).
The first insistence is that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a continuance.
It is the well-settled law in this State that continuances are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and that a refusal to grant a continuance is never ground for a new trial, unless it clearly appears to have been an abuse of such discretion and manifestly operates as a denial of justice. Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444, 86 S.W. 409; Wood v. State, 159 Ark. 671, 252 S.W. 897.
From the statement of facts it appears that the only material testimony offered to be established by the absent witness was that the still which was found by the officers was located one-half mile distant from appellant's home. The witness John Rogers, who was present at the trial, testified to this same fact, therefore, the evidence of the absent witness would have been cumulative only. For this reason, if no other, the trial court was fully warranted in overruling the motion for continuance.
It is next insisted that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict of not guilty in behalf of appellant. This is based upon the theory that the still which was found by the officers had no worm attached thereto.
If juries and trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vault v. State
...Ark. 713, 170 S.W.2d 381; Matthews v. Clay County, 125 Ark. 136, 188 S.W. 564; Cady v. Pack, 135 Ark. 445, 205 S.W. 819; French v. State, 187 Ark. 782, 62 S.W.2d 976; Beason v. State, 166 Ark. 142, 265 S.W. 956; Decker v. State, 85 Ark. 64, 107 S.W. 182. We once said that when circuit court......
-
Weber v. State, 5568
...Ark. 1212, 277 S.W. 866; Matthews v. Clay County, 125 Ark. 136, 188 S.W. 564; Cady v. Pack, 135 Ark. 445, 205 S.W. 819; French v. State, 187 Ark. 782, 62 S.W.2d 976; Hooper v. State, 186 Ark. 1197, 57 S.W.2d 810; Decker v. State, 85 Ark. 64, 107 S.W. 182; Beason v. State, 166 Ark. 142, 265 ......
-
Deatherage v. State
...the case. The first, second and third objections are disposed of in the cases of Spear v. State, 184 Ark. 1047, 44 S.W.2d 663, and French v. State, supra. does not appear what examination, if any, was made of the jury on their voir dire, or that any juror was challenged, or that appellant h......
-
Bartley v. State
...held that criminal cases will not be reversed for non-prejudicial errors. Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530, 258 S.W. 995; French v. State, 187 Ark. 782, 62 S.W.2d 976. In Deatherage v. State, 194 Ark. 513, 108 S.W.2d 904, the clothing worn by deceased was introduced and the effect of its in......