Haywood v. State

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WOOD, J.
• Citation: Haywood v. State, 219 S.W. 750, 143 Ark. 576 (Ark. 1920)
• Decision Date: 03 May 1920
• Docket Number: 375
• Parties: HAYWOOD v. STATE

219 S.W. 750

143 Ark. 576

HAYWOOD v. STATE

No. 375

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 3, 1920

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District; John Brizzolara, Judge; reversed.

Cause reversed and remanded.

Robert A. Rowe, for appellant.

John D Arbuckle, Attorney General, and J. B. Webster, Assistant, for appellee.

Confess error. Kirby's Digest, §§ 2340, 2346; 44 Ark 332.

OPINION

WOOD J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of petit larceny. The property alleged to have been stolen was one baseball mitt one baseball and one fielder's glove.

The facts, so far as it may be necessary to state them, are that A. McCowne, the agent, and Fred McKinney, car repairer for the Missouri Pacific Railway Company at Greenwood, Arkansas, owned two baseballs and three mitts, with which they and other boys, including the appellant, played ball around the depot. At noon on Sunday in the spring or summer of 1919, the appellant passed the depot, the window at the ticket office was up and there were two balls and three mitts lying on the table. He took one of the balls and two of the mitts. The contention of the appellant is that he did not take the ball and mitt and glove with the intention of stealing the same, but only for the purpose of playing with them and then of returning them to the owner. The appellant testified that other boys were with him; that he did not break into the depot; that it was daylight.

The court, over the objection of the appellant, refused to permit the appellant to testify that there were other mitts and a ball lying on the table there at the depot at the time of the alleged theft.

The court erred in refusing to permit the above testimony to go to the jury. This testimony was competent as tending to shed light upon the intention of the appellant. It was a circumstance which the jury should have been...