Holt v. State

• Decision Date: 05 June 1886
• Citation: 1 S.W. 61,47 Ark. 196
• Parties: HOLT v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

1 S.W. 61

47 Ark. 196

HOLT v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 5, 1886

APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court, Hon. J. M. PITTMAN, Circuit Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

B. R Davidson for Appellant.

The verdict in this case is so palpably against the evidence, as "to shock one's sense of justice." 34 Ark. 639. It is wholly unsupported by the evidence.

It was the duty of the court to instruct the jury properly, even though no instructions had been asked by the defendant. Const., Art. 7, sec. 23: 22 Iowa 270; 25 Id., 572; 58 Cal 245; Instructions to Juries (Sackett), p. 13 sec. 4; 37 Ark 338.

The indictment fails to charge the crime "in the name and by the authority of the state," as required by law. Mansf. Dig., sec. 2122.

Dan W. Jones, Attorney General, for Appellee.

The appellant was indicted for assault with a deadly weapon, and convicted. It is admitted by the appellant that there was evidence both for and against him.

The bill of exceptions fails to show what instructions were given, and no exception to instructions was reserved.

One of the grounds of the motion for new trial was surprise at the evidence of Brantley, a witness for the state, who had not been subpoenaed, and for newly discovered evidence to impeach him. So far as Brantley's evidence was concerned, it was only cumulative of other evidence by the state, and was in regard to the main issue. The appellant could not, therefore, have been greatly surprised and unprepared to meet the testimony.

Newly discovered evidence going to impeach a witness is no ground for a new trial. Minkwitz v. Stein, 36 Ark. 260. This court will not interfere to decide upon the weight of evidence.

There was a motion in arrest because the caption to the indictment did not say "in the name and by the authority," etc. This was not material. Greeson v. State, 5 How., Miss. 33.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

Sam Holt was indicted in the Washington circuit court for assaulting Ol. Cowger, with a deadly weapon, with intent to inflict upon his person a bodily injury, when no considerable provocation appeared, and was convicted. He filed motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, which were overruled, and he saved exceptions and appealed.

The commencement of the indictment is as follows: "The grand jury of Washington county accuse Charley Washington, John Washington and Sam Holt, of the crime of an assault with a deadly weapon, committed as follows." Appellant insists that this commencement is insufficient and the indictment is fatally defective, because it is not stated, in the commencement, that the grand jury accused the defendants therein named of the crime charged "in the name and by the authority of the State of Arkansas." This is not required or necessary. There is no particular form of indictment prescribed by the statute of this state, which is required to be strictly followed. The constitution of this state says, it shall conclude: "Against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas." Further than this no particular form of words is required to be used. The statute says: The indictment must contain: "First, The title of the prosecution, specifying the name of the court in which the indictment is presented, and the names of the parties. Second, A statement of the acts constituting the offense. in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what it intended." That it must be direct and certain as regards: "First, The party charged. Second, The offense charged. Third, The county in which the offense was committed. Fourth, The particular circumstances of the offense charged, when they are necessary to constitute a complete offense." And that it is suffici...