Gaskin v. State, 5301
| Citation | 244 Ark. 541,426 S.W.2d 407 |
| Decision Date | 08 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5301,5301 |
| Parties | , Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,777 J. Ernie GASKIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Harold L. Hall, Little Rock, for appellant.
Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Fourteen separate informations were filed against the appellant, J. Ernie Gaskin, charging that he had violated § 7 of the Arkansas Securities Act, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 67--1241 (Repl. 1966), by selling Americana Motor Inns corporate stock to certain residents of Lee county with knowledge that the securities had not been registered as required by the Act. Upon trial the jury found Gaskin guilty of every offense charged and fixed his punishment for each offense at a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for one year. This appeal is from a judgment entered on the verdict.
We need not detail the State's proof. Gaskin was the president of a company that was a registered dealer in securities. He did not deny that his salesmen had made the asserted sales of Americana stock to the purchasers who testified for the State. His defense was that the stock did not have to be registered, because he had obtained an exemption under § 14(b)(9) of the Act, which exempts (upon certain conditions) 'any transaction pursuant to an offer directed by the offerer to not more than twenty-five (25) persons.' Ark.Stat.Ann. § 67--1248(b)(9). That subsection goes on to provide that the Securities Commissioner may by rule or order further condition the exemption.
The State, in presenting its case in chief, attempted to anticipate and rebut Gaskin's expected defense by proving that he had not complied with the Commissioner's rules governing what we may call the 25-offerees exemption. The Commissioner, called as a witness for the State, testified that his department had adopted a rule requiring an applicant for that particular exemption to file a list of the names of the 25 proposed offerees 'so we will know who they are.' It was then shown that the names of the fourteen purchasers referred to in the informations against Gaskin were not included in the list of 25 names that Gaskin had filed in obtaining the exemption for Americana corporate stock. Upon that proof the State contended below, and contends here, that Gaskin was guilty as charged.
We cannot sustain that argument. Section 21(a) of the Act (§ 67--1255(a)) provides that a violation of the statute is a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than three years or by both. By contrast, § 21(b) (§ 67--1255(b)) provides that a violation of any authorized rule or order of the Commissioner is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.
Gaskin was charged and convicted under the felony provisions of the Act, but the proof does not support the conviction. The statute, being penal, must be construed strictly. It simply provides an exemption with respect to an offer of securities directed to not more than 25 persons (with other conditions not now relevant). It is plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giles v. State
...without parole unless the Attorney General, within 17 days, requests a remand for a new trial. Williams v. State, supra; Gaskin v. State, 244 Ark. 541, 426 S.W.2d 407; Rorie v. State, supra, 215 Ark. 282, 220 S.W.2d Appellant raised three points relating to the trial judge's excusing three ......
-
Caton v. State
...offense must be contained in the greater offense--the greater containing certain elements not contained in the lesser. Gaskin v. State,244 Ark. 541, 426 S.W.2d 407. However, this general statement of the principle does not provide the test we have heretofore utilized. An accused may be conv......
-
McCoy v. State
...State v. Nichols, 38 Ark. 550 (1882); Guest v. State, 19 Ark. 405 (1858); Strawn v. State, 14 Ark. 549 (1854). In Gaskin v. State, 244 Ark. 541, 426 S.W.2d 407 (1968), this court altered its prior decisions and opted for a more succinct test: "To be an included offense, all the elements of ......
-
Collins v. State
...We have also recently said that we might reduce the penalty unless the Attorney General elects to take a new trial. Gaskin v. State, 244 Ark. 541, 426 S.W.2d 407. In Hadley v. State, 196 Ark. 307, 117 S.W.2d 352, this court observed that there were numerous instances in which it had reduced......