Marshall v. State

• Decision Date: 06 June 1903
• Citation: 75 S.W. 584
• Parties: MARSHALL et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 584

75 S.W. 584

MARSHALL et al. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 6, 1903.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County; Styles F. Rowe, Judge.

E. J. Marshall and another were convicted of grand larceny, and appeal. Reversed.

Appellants were indicted as follows: "The grand jury of Sebastian county, for the Ft. Smith district thereof, in the name and by the authority of the state of Arkansas, accuse the defendants, E. J. Marshall and Ed. Burdett, of the crime of grand larceny, committed as follows, to wit: The said defendants, in the county and district aforesaid, on the 15th day of October, 1902, one pocket-book, of the value of $1, thirty-five dollars, gold, silver, and paper money of the United States, of the value of $35, all the property of Jim Dyer, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas." Defendants demurred to the indictment for the insufficient description of the money, which demurrer being overruled, they excepted. In his opening statement of the case in behalf of the plaintiff, the prosecuting attorney stated to the jury that he would prove that the defendants had the reputation in New York, in St. Louis, in New Orleans, in Chicago, and in other cities, of being professional pickpockets and thieves, to which statement defendants immediately objected on the ground that such evidence was only admissible to contradict them, and not as substantive evidence, which objection the court overruled, stating that he would control that, and, if it became inadmissible, he would so tell the jury, to which defendants excepted, whereupon the prosecuting attorney proceeded, and stated that he would prove that defendants' pictures were in the rogues' gallery at St. Louis, and that defendant Marshall had served a term in the penitentiary, to all of which defendants objected. At the conclusion of the trial, defendants asked the court to instruct the jury "that the proof of the amount of money taken, $34 or $36, was not sufficient to sustain a conviction," which being refused, defendants excepted.

Mechem & Bryant, for appellants. Geo. W. Murphy, Atty. Gen., for the State.

WOOD, J.

The indictment was sufficient. Sand. & H. Dig. § 1717 State v. Boyce, 65 Ark. 82, 44 S. W. 1043.

It was not necessary, under section 1717, supra, to particularly describe in the indictment the kind of money taken, further than gold, silver, or paper money. But inasmuch as the money was described as "of the...