Kirkwood v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | 4154 |
| Citation | 136 S.W.2d 174,199 Ark. 879 |
| Parties | KIRKWOOD v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court; Garner Fraser, Judge; affirmed.
Affirmed.
Gordon Armitage, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General and Jno. P. Streepey, Asst Atty. General, for appellee.
On September 20, 1939, appellant was charged by information with the crime of gambling, committed by operating a gaming device--a slot machine. Court being in session, a bench warrant was issued and he was arrested. The record shows that at 1 p. m. of that date his case was called in court, where he appeared in person and announced that he was not ready for trial; the court advised him the case would be called at 8 a m. the next morning. At 9 a. m., September 21, his case was called for trial and he again was not ready. He stated that he wanted to get an attorney from Searcy and had just had a subpoena issued for his witnesses. The court held that he had not used diligence, and the case went to trial, resulting in a verdict of guilty and assessing a fine of $ 500 and sixty days in jail, on which judgment was entered.
If appellant objected to being forced into trial before he had an opportunity to employ counsel, or if he filed a motion for a continuance because of the absence of his witnesses, the record does not show it. He had from the time he was arrested on the preceding day to 9 a. m. to employ counsel and have subpoenas for his witnesses. This being a misdemeanor charge, there was no duty on the court to appoint him counsel. Section 3877, Pope's Digest. And he showed no diligence in getting witnesses, even had he filed a motion for continuance on that account.
All the other questions raised by appellant, except the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, are not open to question by him, because not reflected by the bill of exceptions and are raised for the first time in his motion for a new trial. He did file a motion for an order nunc pro tunc, but it does not appear that it was presented to or ruled on by the court.
The sufficiency of the evidence cannot be doubted. It is not in dispute. He offered no witness and did not testify for himself. Three witnesses testify for the state, that they had been in appellant's road house, saw a slot machine therein in operation, and one said the machine he saw was a kind of gambling device, where you put money in pulled a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of New Orleans v. Cook
... ... in age between seventeen and eighteen were charged by affidavits filed in the Second Municipal Court, City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, with violating Ordinance No. 828 M.C.S., Section 42--24, 1 relative to assault on complainant Peter Porretto at about 9:20 P.M. on ... We have held that no duty is imposed upon the trial court to appoint counsel for a defendant charged with a misdemeanor. Kirkwood v. State, 199 Ark. 879, 136 S.W.2d 174; Wimberly v. State, 214 Ark. 930, 218 S.W.2d 730 ... 'On the strength of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43--1203 ... ...
-
Wimberly v. State
... ... there is presented for our review only such questions as can ... be raised without objection first being made in the court ... below." We have also held that no duty is imposed on the ... trial court to appoint counsel for a defendant charged with a ... misdemeanor. Kirkwood v. State, 199 Ark ... 879, 136 S.W.2d 174 ... It is ... finally contended that error was committed in the giving of ... Instruction No. 3 1/2 requested by the State. This ... instruction is in the language of the following provision of ... Ark. Stats. (1947), § 48-811: ... ...
-
Winters v. Beck
... ... We have held that no duty is imposed upon the trial court to appoint counsel for a defendant charged with a misdemeanor. Kirkwood v. State, 199 Ark. 879, 136 S.W.2d 174; Wimberly v. State, 214 Ark. 930, 218 S.W.2d 730 ... [239 Ark. 1152] On the strength of ... ...
-
Pixley v. State
... ... It is not sufficient to bring it into the record ... for the first time in the motion for a new trial as ... [155 S.W.2d 714] ... appellant has attempted to do in the instant case. We so held ... in the recent case of Butler v. State, 198 ... Ark. 514, 129 S.W.2d 226, and in Kirkwood v ... State, ... ...