Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 02 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | 156 |
| Citation | 188 S.W. 801,125 Ark. 263 |
| Parties | HALL v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
M. E Sanderson, for appellant.
1. The court erred in compelling defendant, after his peremptory challenges were exhausted, to accept as jurors persons who served as jurors on a former trial.
2. It was error to refuse instruction No. 4. The State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the fear of punishment was removed before a confession of defendant is admissible in evidence against him, and not by a mere preponderance of evidence.
3. The evidence is insufficient. Neither the person or property were identified.
Wallace Davis, Attorney General, and Hamilton Moses, Assistant, for appellee.
1. There was no error in the court's acceptance of the jurors. 44 Ark. 115; 58 Id. 353; 66 Id. 53; 79 Id. 127; 120 S.W. 419; 36 Wash. 358; 145 Pa. 451; 40 S.E. 308; 129 S.W. 141.
2. There is no error in the court's charge. 73 Ark. 497; 93 Id. 156; 109 Id. 366; 1 Rul. Case Law, 564 Underhill on Cr. Ev. § 140; 113 Iowa 691; 121 Ga. 344; 190 Penn. St. 23; 113 Iowa 691; 107 Ark. 568; 14 Id 555; 34 Id. 654; 122 Ark. 606.
3. The confession was authenticated by the finding of the stolen property. Wigmore on Evidence, § 856; 47 Ark. 174; 122 Ark. 606.
The defendant, Aubrey Hall, was indicted jointly with Roy Thomas, Bert Elliot and W. B. Walker, on the charge of burglary and grand larceny by entering the store of W. A. Benge in the City of Texarkana, and on his election to sever his cause from that of the other defendants he was put on trial and convicted on both charges.
The bill of exceptions contains the brief recital of an exception to the overruling by the court of defendant's objection to the competency of certain jurors who had served as jurors in the cases against Thomas and Walker. The record does not show affirmatively that the trials in which the jurors served were upon the particular indictment involved in the present case, and the Attorney General in his brief makes the assertion that it was another charge against the same parties which the jurors had previously tried. The mere fact that the jurors had served in another case in which the defendant and others had been indicted would not disqualify them as jurors in the present case; and in order to sustain the exception, it devolved upon the defendant to show affirmatively that the jurors had served in another case which disqualified them from serving in the present case. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the recitals of the bill of exceptions do not show facts sufficient to establish prejudice in the ruling of the court in compelling the defendant to accept the jurors. The presumption is, until the contrary appears, that they were not disqualified by prejudice or otherwise.
The evidence on the part of the State establishes the fact that the store of Benge was burglarized on a certain occasion, and that the defendant made of voluntary confession as to his participation in the crime. The evidence was, therefore, sufficient to sustain a conviction. Defendant contended that his confession was extorted by threats and violence, but the evidence was conflicting on that feature of the case and we feel bound by the findings of the court and jury on that issue.
After hearing the evidence, the court admitted the testimony concerning the confession and also submitted the issue to the jury as to whether or not the confession was voluntary. It is contended that the court erred in instructing the jury that the State was only bound to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary. The contention is that the State should have been required to prove that fact beyond a reasonable doubt before the confession would be admissible.
"The doctrine of reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Polian
...Commonwealth v. Robinson, 146 Mass. 571, 580-583, 16 N. E. 452;Scott v. State, 107 Ohio St. 475, 496 et seq., 141 N. E. 19;Hell v. State, 125 Ark. 263, 188 S. W. 801;People v. Guido, 321 Ill. 397, 411, 152 N. E. 149;People v. Bartz, 342 Ill, 56, 62, 173 N. E. 779; Wigmore, Evid. (2d Ed.) § ......
-
Care and Protection of Laura
...the indictment and the guilt of the defendant." Scott v. State, 107 Ohio St. 475, 497, 141 N.E. 19 (1923). See also Hall v. State, 125 Ark. 263, 266, 188 S.W. 801 (1916) (doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to general issue of guilty or not guilty, not to each item of testimony or to each ......
-
Commonwealth v. Polian
... ... Tucker, 189 Mass. 457 , 473-475. See ... also Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165; Hart ... Packing Co. v. Guild, 251 Mass. 43, 46. Compare State v ... Bordeleau, 118 Maine, 424. State v. Compo, 108 N. J. L. 499 ... But this practice does not change the nature of the question ... It is ... necessary preliminary facts. Commonwealth v ... Robinson, 146 Mass. 571, 580-583. Scott v ... State, 107 Ohio St. 475, 496, et seq. Hall v ... State, 125 Ark. 263. People v. Guido, 321 Ill ... 397, 411. People v. Bartz, 342 Ill. 56, 62. Wigmore, ... Evidence (2d ed.) Section 2550, ... ...
-
Cush v. State
... ... place and substance of the confession. If the question of the ... voluntary nature of appellant's confession had been ... raised, undoubtedly the burden to show its free and voluntary ... character would have rested upon the State. Hall v ... State, 125 Ark. 263, 188 S.W. 801; Finn v ... State, 127 Ark. 204, 191 S.W. 899. But the appellant ... permitted the testimony to go unchallenged either by ... objection or motion to exclude it from the jury's ... consideration, and is not now in position to complain because ... of ... ...