Lindsey v. State
| Citation | 143 S.W.2d 573,201 Ark. 87 |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | 4190 |
| Parties | LINDSEY v. STATE |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court; J. W. Trimble, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Jameson & Jameson, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Ossie Langley, Charley Langley, Gerald Ralston and Claude Lindsey were jointly indicted and tried upon the charge of having robbed Mary Jane and Steve Jones. All were convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary, but only Claude Lindsey has appealed.
It appears that Ossie Langley and Gerald Ralston had signed written confessions, in which they admitted their guilt and detailed the circumstances under which the crime had been committed. These confessions were to the effect that the robbery was planned by the four persons charged with its commission; that appellant, Claude Lindsey, furnished the car and drove the party to the Jones home, but that appellant remained with the car while the others went to the Jones home and committed the robbery. These confessions were admitted in evidence over the objection and exception of appellant Claude Lindsey.
A signed statement made by appellant was also admitted in evidence, to the effect that he was requested by Charley Langley to drive him and certain others from Fayetteville to Madison county. He said he had no gas for his car, but Ossie Langley and Gerald Ralston agreed to and did buy the gasoline. They drove beyond St Paul, in Madison county. It is further recited in this signed statement:
Appellant did not repudiate this statement in his testimony at his trial. His testimony was to the effect that the car was not driven to the Jones home, but near there; that he was not told, and did not know, what his associates proposed to do; that he was not told of their intention to commit a robbery, and did not know that they had done so until after the party had separated. He made no explanation of his lack of knowledge about the circumstances under which Langley was shot.
The court defined an accomplice, and told the jury that an accused person could not be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In the same instruction, the court further charged the jury that "You are further instructed that a voluntary confession made to one who is not an accomplice is sufficient corroboration, and the confession here can be considered only by you as evidence against the one who made it."
There is no question that the robbery was committed. Mary Jane Jones, one of the persons robbed, testified that although the robbers were masked, she recognized Ossie and Charley Langley, who are her nephews, as being two of them.
Reversal of the judgment of conviction of appellant, Claude Lindsey is asked upon two grounds: (a) that it was error, as to him, to admit the confessions of Ossie Langley and Gerald Ralston, and (b) that, without these confessions, the testimony is insufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goodyear
...by the following authorities: State v. MacLaren, 115 Or. 505, 237 P. 969; State v. Kirkland, 175 N.C. 770, 94 S.E. 725; Lindsey v. State, 201 Ark. 87, 143 S.W.2d 573; United States v. Newhoff, 2 Cir., 83 F.2d 942; Brooks v. United States, 9 Cir., 8 F.2d 593.' 59 Ariz. at 429, 129 P.2d at In......
-
Morton And Ashcraft v. State
... ... this court in the recent case of Bennett and Holiman ... v. State, 201 Ark. 237, 144 S.W.2d 476, 131 A. L. R ... 908. That opinion so completely disposed of this question ... that we copy somewhat extensively from it: ... "In ... the recent case of Lindsey v. State, 201 ... Ark. 87, 143 S.W.2d 573, this court said: ... "'The ... confessions of Langley and Ralston were made after the ... completion of the criminal enterprise, and in the absence of ... appellant, and the law is definitely settled that, where a ... crime is ... ...
-
Morton v. State, 4367.
...908. That opinion so completely disposed of this question that we copy somewhat extensively from it: "In the recent case of Lindsey v. State , 143 S.W.2d 573, 574, this court "`The confessions of Langley and Ralston were made after the completion of the criminal enterprise, and in the absen......
-
Nolan and Guthrie v. State
... ... jury, by reason of human nature, would consider it as ... evidence against Guthrie, and that no cautionary instruction ... of the court could cure this situation. A similar contention ... was unsuccessfully made in the case of Lindsey v ... State, 201 Ark. 87, 143 S.W.2d 573, and disposed of ... in the following language: "It is argued that the jury ... could not consider the confessions for any purpose without ... considering them against appellant. But this does not ... necessarily follow. The jury was told to do so, and ... ...