Jackson v. State

• Decision Date: 05 June 1922
• Docket Number: 39
• Citation: Jackson v. State, 241 S.W. 862, 154 Ark. 119 (Ark. 1922)
• Parties: JACKSON v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

241 S.W. 862

154 Ark. 119

JACKSON v. STATE

No. 39

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 5, 1922

Appeal from Bradley Circuit Court; Turner Butler, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

D A. Bradham and Clay & Ball, for appellant.

J S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and Wm. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.

OPINION

HART, J.

Wesley Jackson prosecutes an appeal to this court to reverse a judgment against him for the crime of seduction.

It is first insisted by counsel for the defendant that the judgment should be reversed on account of the disqualification of one of the jurors. This assignment of error is based upon the testimony of the sheriff and of an uncle of the defendant to the effect that Julius Beasley came into one of the offices in the courthouse, while the jury was deliberating upon its verdict in the present case, and stated that he had heard one of the jurors say that he knew all about the case and that they were going to send the defendant to the penitentiary.

Julius Beasley testified that he did state that he heard one of the jurors say that the defendant would be sent to the penitentiary, and started to explain his remarks, but the witness would not listen to him. Beasley testified that the qualifications of his remarks would have been that one of the grand jurors had told him that the boy was in a close place and that they (meaning the grand jury) had held the case open to hear his side of it, and that he did not see any chance for the boy.

The court overruled the motion for a new trial on this account thereby finding that no member of the petit jury made the statements attributed to Beasley by the witnesses and that no prejudice had resulted to the defendant by reason of the disqualification of any member of the petit jury. It cannot be said that the court abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily in the matter. Therefore this assignment of error is not well taken. Hamer v. State, 104 Ark. 606, 150 S.W. 142, and Sneed v. State, 143 Ark. 178, 219 S.W. 1019.

It is next insisted that the court erred in instructing the jury that it was a question for it to say whether the testimony of the prosecuting witness had been corroborated by other testimony, which, unconnected with that of the prosecuting witness and independent of her testimony, tends to establish the guilt of the defendant, etc.

There was no error in giving this instruction. Of course, where there is no corroborating evidence, it is the duty of the court to take the case from the jury, because there could be no conviction unless the prosecuting witness is corroborated both as to the promise to marry and the fact of the intercourse. But where there is corroborating evidence, the weight of it is for the jury, and it is within the province of the jury to determine whether the evidence of the prosecuting witness has been sufficiently corroborated by the other evidence in the case, both as to the promise of marriage and the sexual intercourse. Brooks v. State, 126 Ark. 98, 189 S.W. 669.

It is next contended by counsel for the defendant that the court erred in allowing the introduction of certain letters of the defendant to the prosecuting witness.

Counsel for defendant specifically object to these letters because they were written during the first part of the year 1917, and the witness testified that the crime was committed in September, 1920.

With regard to the general objection to the introduction of the letters, it may be stated that the prosecuting witness testified that she knew the handwriting of the defendant and identified the letters as having been written by him. They were dated in January, March, and April, 1917, and one of them the prosecuting witness says was written during the first part of 1918. The prosecuting witness testified that the defendant kept company with her during the whole of the time from the first of the year 1917 to the fall of 1920, when he seduced her. The letters of the defendant to the prosecuting witness are full of endearing terms to her, and each one assures her of his great love for her. He tells her that he will love her forever, and wishes for the same kind of affection from her. Under the circumstances...