Gooch v. State

• Decision Date: 01 December 1894
• Citation: 28 S.W. 510
• Parties: GOOCH v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

28 S.W. 510

GOOCH v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 1, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Crawford county; Jephtha H. Evans, Judge.

Charles Gooch was convicted of larceny, and appeals.Reversed.

Oscar S. Miles, for appellant.James P. Clarke, Atty. Gen., and Chas. T. Coleman, for the State.

RIDDICK, J.

The appellant, Charles Gooch, was indicted by the grand jury of Franklin county for the crime of larceny.The indictment alleged that he stole a mare, the property of H. C. McElroy.The evidence tended to show that Gooch hired the mare from one Hollenbeck, to ride to his uncle's, who lived near Oak Bower.After leaving his uncle's, he rode the horse to Ozark, in Franklin county.That, while in Ozark, he traded the horse he had hired to one McElroy, for a horse owned by McElroy, representing to McElroy that the mare he traded was his property.He then sold the horse obtained from McElroy.McElroy afterwards became suspicious about the transaction, and, thinking that the defendant intended to leave on the train that night, told him that he must remain at his (McElroy's) house until morning, so that he could investigate the matter.Defendant at first declined to do this, but upon being told that, if he did not consent to stay, he would be put in jail, he consented.McElroy gave him a room with bed at his house; but when he awoke next morning, about 4 o'clock, it was to find that the defendant and mare were both gone.The next day defendant was captured about 10 miles west of Ozark.On the trial the defendant testified in his own behalf, and, in explanation of his conduct, said, that, after he had hired the mare from Hollenbeck, and before he got to his uncle's, he had met a man who invited him to drink from a bottle of diluted alcohol; that he drank, and became very drunk; that he got to his uncle's late that night; that next morning he had a high fever, and started to return to Jenny Lind, at which place he had hired the horse; on the journey he became unconscious, and did not know anything till that afternoon, when he found himself at Webb City; that he crossed the river to Ozark, when he began to make offers to trade or sell Hollenbeck's mare; did not know why he did it; that he traded the mare to McElroy; that, soon after he traded her, he discovered he was getting into trouble, and, when McElroy told him he had to stay all night with him, he decided to get up in the night, and take the mare secretly from the stable, and return her to Hollenbeck, from whom he had hired her, as quick as possible, and get his father to come over to Ozark, and pay McElroy for his horse, and straighten up whatever wrong he(defendant) had done; that this was the only intention he had at the time of taking the mare from McElroy.Defendant was 19 years of age, and witnesses who knew him testified that up to the time of this crime his character was good.Defendant was convicted, and appealed.

It is urged as grounds for reversal, first, that the court erred in giving to the jury an instruction touching the law of insanity, and in regard to the burden of proof when such a defense is set up.It is contended that the defendant did not set up such defense, and that the instruction was abstract and prejudicial.Where there is any evidence tending to show insanity or unsoundness of mind on the part of the defendant at the time the crime was committed, the court may of its own motion give an instruction covering the law on that point; and, if an instruction is given without any evidence upon which to base it, this court will not reverse when it is apparent that the defendant was not injured by such instruction.In this casewe do not see that the defendant was in any way prejudiced by the instruction in question.

It is next contended that, as McElroy had purchased the mare from one who had no right to sell, the...