Harding v. State
Decision Date | 28 February 1910 |
Citation | 126 S.W. 90,94 Ark. 65 |
Parties | HARDING v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cross Circuit Court; Frank Smith, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
M. P Remley, and Mann & Rollwage, for appellant.
1. The indictment is fatally defective. The word wilful is omitted and no word substituted sufficient to charge murder in the first degree. 60 Ark. 564; 28 So. Rep. 1002; 43 La.Ann. 183; 8 So. 440; 45 La.Ann. 1182; 41 Id. 598; 7 So. Rep 125; 2 S.E. 455; 11 Am. Rep. 206; 50 Tenn. 6; 76 Ark. 84; 71 Id. 403.
2. Incompetent testimony was admitted to the prejudice of defendant. 73 Ark. 152; 82 Id. 58.
3. No exceptions need be saved under the act of 1909. Acts 1909, p. 259.
Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and W. H. Rector, Assistant, for appellee.
1. The indictment is good under our statutes. 60 Ark. 564; 25 Id. 405; 74 Id. 403; 76 Id. 84; 62 Id. 368.
2. No exceptions were saved to the introduction of evidence, and the act of 1909 is invalid. Elliott on App. Pro. § 7; 49 Ark. 161; 13 Cal 25; 76 Ark. 184; 14 Ore. 29; 24 So. Car. 60-75; 39 Ind. 515; Elliott, App. Pro. § 481.
Henry Harding was indicted by a grand jury of Cross County for murder in the first degree; the indictment, omitting caption, being as follows:
The defendant contends that the indictment is defective because the word "wilful" is omitted.
The statutes provide: "The indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom:
"The words used in an indictment must be construed according to their usual acceptation in common language, except words and phrases defined by law, which are to be construed according to their legal meaning." Kirby's Dig., § 2242.
"The indictment must contain * * *
The indictment in this case fully meets the requirements of these statutes. The words used in it are "unlawfully, feloniously, of his malice aforethought, with deliberation and premeditation." They clearly and certainly mean that the act charged was wilful. It could not have been committed in the manner charged unless it was wilful. Aubrey v. State, 62 Ark. 368, 35 S.W. 792; Carroll v. State, 71 Ark. 403, 75 S.W. 471; Daniels v. State, 76 Ark. 84, 88 S.W. 844; State v. Peyton, 93 Ark. 406, 125 S.W. 416.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. He saved no exceptions to the evidence adduced or to the instructions given. He relies on an act entitled "An act to regulate the practice in the Supreme Court," approved May 31, 1909, which is as follows:
"In all cases appealed from the circuit courts of this State to the Supreme Court, or prosecuted in the Supreme Court upon writs of error, where the appellant has been convicted in the lower court of a capital offense, all errors of the lower court prejudicial to the rights of the appellant shall be heard and considered by the Supreme Court, whether exceptions were saved in the lower court or not; and if the Supreme Court finds that any prejudicial error was committed by the trial court in the trial of any case in which a conviction of a capital offense resulted, such cause shall be reversed and remanded for a new trial, or the judgment modified, at the discretion of the court."
The Supreme Court of this State has appellate jurisdiction only, except it may issue writs of quo warranto to the circuit judges and chancellors and to officers of political corporations when the question involved is the legal existence of such corporation. Art. 7, §§ 4 and 5.
The Legislature cannot add to or take from the jurisdiction vested in it by the Constitution. It cannot vest it with the jurisdiction to try capital offenses on appeal or writ of error as the circuit court. It is only for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc. v. Fowler
...24). The Legislature cannot add to or take from the jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution. Harding v. State, 94 Ark. 65, 126 S.W.2d 90; Ft. Smith Light and Traction Co. v. Bourland, 160 Ark. 1, 254 S.W. It cannot confer original jurisdiction on this court. Ft. Smith L......
-
Howard v. State
...instructed the jury not to consider the same. See Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 74 Ark. 256 [85 S.W. 428 (1905)]; Harding v. State, 94 Ark. 65 [126 S.W. 90 (1910)]." This case presents precisely this situation. The argument was beyond flagrant. Howard's right to a fair and impartial tr......
-
Lard v. State
...instructed the jury not to consider the same. See Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 74 Ark. 256 [85 S.W. 428 (1905) ]; Harding v. State, 94 Ark. 65 [126 S.W. 90 (1910) ].”Wicks, 270 Ark. at 786, 606 S.W.2d at 369–70. Our case law is clear that Wicks presents only narrow exceptions that are......
-
Howard v. State
...instructed the jury not to consider the same. See Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 74 Ark. 256 [85 S.W. 428 (1905)]; Harding v. State, 94 Ark. 65 [126 S.W. 90 (1910)]." This case presents precisely this situation. The argument was beyond flagrant. Howard's right to a fair and impartial tr......