Geoates v. State
| Decision Date | 17 January 1944 |
| Docket Number | 4331 |
| Citation | 177 S.W.2d 919,206 Ark. 654 |
| Parties | Geoates v. State |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; J. O. Kincannon, Judge.
Affirmed.
Rains & Rains, for appellant.
Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
From conflicting evidence the jury found that appellant had feloniously taken items of household furnishings belonging to Mrs. Viola Wells. This appeal comes from a prison sentence of a year and a day.
Since testimony on behalf of the State was substantial, and value of the property was proved, the Court did not err in refusing to set the verdict aside on appellant's protest that the burden had not been met.
It is argued that an instruction (relating to testimony that recently stolen property had been found in the defendant's possession) was comment upon the weight of evidence, in that the jury was told such evidence alone did not imperatively impose the duty of conviction. [1]
The motion for a new trial alleges that the Court erred "in giving to the jury instructions Nos. 1 to ." This was only sufficient to identify the first instruction, which did not contain the matter complained of. Purpose of a motion for new trial is to affirmatively bring to attention of the trial Court the particular error objected to. There is nothing in the motion indicating that the Court's attention was directed to what is now alleged to have been a misuse of the word "imperative" to the defendant's prejudice. We do not review errors the Circuit Court was not asked to correct.
Finally, it is insisted the conviction is void because the information was not sworn to by the deputy prosecuting attorney who filed it. Defendant's general demurrer was overruled. It is now argued the purpose was to reach the faulty information.
The irregularity, if objectionable to the defendant, should have been tested by motion to quash. In that event the Prosecuting Attorney could have amended. Pope's Digest, § 3853. Matters that may be reached by demurrer to an indictment are set out in § 3892 of Pope's Digest. In the instant case there was conformity to Digest requirements, § 3834. In the absence of statutory mandates relating to an information, laws pertaining to indictments are applicable when not inconsistent with the nature of the process.
It is contemplated that, before trial, the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wade
...Corson v. United States, 147 F.2d 437 (9th Cir.1944); Powers v. United States, 128 F.2d 300, 301 (D.C.Cir.1942); Geoates v. State, 206 Ark. 654, 176 S.W.2d 919 (1944); State v. Cantrell, 64 Wyo. 132, 186 P.2d 539 (1947). See generally 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 81 We have held......
-
Thurman v. State
...62 Ark. 286, 36 S.W. 900; Ware v. State, 146 Ark. 321, 225 S.W. 626; Holt v. State, 171 Ark. 279, 284 S.W. 1. In Geoates v. State, 206 Ark. 654, 176 S.W.2d 919, 920, the objection was that the information was not sworn to by the deputy prosecuting attorney. The court held that the objection......
-
Thurman v. State
... ... to make to the return of the indictment." See, also, ... Carpenter v. State, 62 Ark. 286, 36 S.W ... 900; Ware v. State, 146 Ark. 321, 225 S.W ... 626; Holt v. State, 171 Ark. 279, 284 S.W ... In ... Geoates v. State, 206 Ark. 654, 177 S.W.2d ... 919, the objection was that the information was not sworn to ... by the deputy prosecuting attorney. The court held that the ... objection should have been tested by motion to quash before ... trial, saying, "It is contemplated that, before trial, ... the ... ...
-
Eddy v. Schuman
... ... parties defendants and are wrongfully joined. 3 ... Plaintiff's complaint, together with his amended ... complaints, does not state a cause of action against any of ... the defendants in this case. 4. That this court has no ... jurisdiction to try the above cause of action in ... ...