Johnson v. State, CR73--23
| Decision Date | 23 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. CR73--23,CR73--23 |
| Citation | 254 Ark. 293,493 S.W.2d 115 |
| Parties | James JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Victor Hlavinka, Texarkana, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by O. H. Hargraves, Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellant was found guilty of burglary and grand larceny and was sentenced to four years imprisonment upon each charge, the sentences to run consecutively. Three points for reversal are submitted by his court-appointed counsel.
First, the sufficiency of the evidence is questioned, but we find no merit in this contention. On the night of June 17, 1972, a burglar alarm went off at the Texarkana police station, indicating the presence of an intruder at the Oklahoma Tire & Supply Company store, which was closed for the night. In response to a call from the police the manager of the store met the officers there. A search of the premises showed that someone had entered the building by breaking a window that gave access to the attic from the roof. On the ground floor a glass gun-cabinet had been broken into. a .38 caliber revolver was missing, plus ammunition.
Upon searching the roof the officers found the appellant, who was trying to hide. Just before his apprehension the appellant threw down a revolver, which was positively identified by its serial number as the missing weapon. The manager testified that two days earlier the appellant had been in the store, inquiring about buying one of the firearms in the cabinet. The jury was certainly justified in finding from the testimony that the appellant broke into the store and stole the revolver.
Secondly, the appellant argues that the trial court improperly singled out one fact and improperly commented upon the evidence, by instructing the jury that possession of recently stolen property is a circumstance that the jury may consider along with all the other facts and circumstances in determining whether the person in possession of the property stole it. We find no error. Our cases have considered two methods of instructing the jury upon this point, one good and the other bad. The distinction is clear:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rickett v. Hayes
...National Bank of Springdale v. Hobbs, 248 Ark. 76, 450 S.W.2d 298; Donahue v. Cowdrey, 246 Ark. 1028, 440 S.W.2d 773; Johnson v. State, 254 Ark. 293, 493 S.W.2d 115. There are many instances where an admonitory instruction will have the desired effect. See, e.g., First National Bank of Spri......
-
Mays v. State, CR78-84
...an error, and to be warranted, it must be apparent that justice cannot be served by a continuation of the trial. Johnson v. State, 254 Ark. 293, 493 S.W.2d 115. We have uniformly held that, in cases of denial of a motion for mistrial based upon prosecutorial improprieties, we will not rever......
-
Gustafson v. State
...Gammel and Spann v. State, 259 Ark. 96, 531 S.W.2d 474 (1976); Hill v. State, 255 Ark. 720, 502 S.W.2d 649 (1973); Johnson v. State, 254 Ark. 293, 493 S.W.2d 115 (1973). As was stated in Simmons v. State, 233 Ark. 616, 346 S.W.2d 197 This Court has repeatedly observed that the prosecuting a......
-
Smith v. State
...was prejudiced by this reference, but if there was any prejudice, it was removed by the admonition of the court. Johnson v. State, 254 Ark. 293, 493 S.W.2d 115 (1973). VI. Appellant finally argues that the court erred in failing to advise the jury it must find that defendant wilfully employ......