Leach v. State, 4927
| Decision Date | 15 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 4927,4927 |
| Citation | 229 Ark. 802,318 S.W.2d 617 |
| Parties | Bill LEACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Eugene Coffelt, Bentonville, for appellant.
Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., and Russell J. Wools, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
While the appellant, Bill Leach, was driving his automobile west on U. S. Highway 71 between Bentonville and Rogers on March 12, 1958, two members of the Arkansas State Police who were driving behind him saw him weaving from one side of the road to the other. They overtook Leach and succeeded in stopping him. The appellant was arrested and charged with operating an automobile upon a public highway while he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense. The jury found him guilty and fixed his punishment at a fine of $250 and ten days in jail. Pursuant to the jury verdict, the Circuit Court sentenced the appellant and suspended his driver's license for a period of one year.
For reversal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to quash the jury panel and in refusing to grant a continuance; that the jury verdict was based upon prejudice; and, that certain remarks by the Prosecuting Attorney in his closing argument were prejudicial.
At the trial the testimony of the arresting officers and others was to the effect that the appellant was unsteady on his feet; that his speech was not clear; that his face was flushed; and, that he had the smell of intoxicating liquor on his breath. For purposes of this opinion we do not consider it necessary to further summarize the evidence.
With reference to his first assignment of error, the appellant refers to a colloquy between the Court, and the appellant and his counsel at the time the case was set for trial. In our opinion, the appellant has failed to state any statutory ground for challenging the jury panel. Section 43-1911 Ark.Stats.1947. Also, he is in no position to complain about the jury panel since he failed to exercise his peremptory challenges. Hooper v. State, 187 Ark. 88, 58 S.W.2d 434.
The appellant's second contention likewise has no merit. He moved orally for a continuance on the ground that a witness he desired to use was absent, and he did not file an affidavit setting forth information specifically required by the applicable statute. Section 27-1403 Ark.Stats.1947. Further, a motion for continuance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolf's v. State
...to say the least, in appellate review of the trial court's action in denying a continuance. Thacker v. State, supra; Leach v. State, 229 Ark. 802, 318 S.W.2d 617. The failure to file such an affidavit, where the motion is based upon absence of witnesses, has been held fatal to an appellant ......
-
Thacker v. State
...to file such an affidavit is a significant factor in appellate review of the trial court's denial of such a motion. Leach v. State, 229 Ark. 802, 318 S.W.2d 617. Here, there was neither affidavit nor testimony to show what the witnesses would testify, appellant's belief in the truth of thei......
-
Stewart v. State
...v. State, 26 Ark. 323; Jackson v. State, 54 Ark. 243, 15 S.W. 607; Sullivan v. State, 109 Ark. 407, 160 S.W. 239; and Leach v. State, 229 Ark. 802, 318 S.W.2d 617. We find no error in the trial court's permitting the introduction of certain photographs since the court explained they were in......
-
Conway v. State
...to file such an affidavit is a significant factor in appellate review of the trial court's denial of such a motion. Leach v. State, 229 Ark. 802, 318 S.W.2d 617. Here, there was neither affidavit nor testimony to show that the witnesses would testify, appellant's belief in the truth of thei......