Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 18 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | Crim. 4063 |
| Citation | 109 S.W.2d 676,194 Ark. 711 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Special Judge affirmed.
Affirmed.
John C Sheffield, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and John P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted in the circuit court of Phillips county for the crime of grand larceny for stealing a red cow, the property of Walter Moore, and, as a punishment for the crime, was adjudged to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary, from which judgment an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.
Appellant was indicted at the April, 1937, term of court and his case was set for trial at the May term thereof. On the fourth day of May it was reported to the court that appellant had been and was sick and could not attend court, whereupon, the court ordered that he be taken to the city hospital at Helena and kept there under observation of Dr. Bruce, county physician, and treated. He was delivered to the hospital as directed, where he remained for several days at his own expense, and then was removed to his home. His case was set for July 5, 1937, at which time he did not appear, but sent the court a certificate of his attending physician, Dr. E. F. Norton, to the effect that he was still sick and unable to attend court for trial. The cause was again set for trial on July 6, and the sheriff was ordered to take charge of him and bring him to court for trial, which was done.
On July 6, appellant's attorney filed a motion for a continuance of the cause setting up, in substance, that appellant had been sick since May, 1937, and had been and was unable to confer with his attorney about his case, and was then unable to help in the selection of a jury, the examination of the witnesses or to, in any manner, be of assistance to his attorney in making his defense. He, also, stated in his motion that his relatives were trying to make financial arrangements to send him to a specialist in Memphis which he believed they could do in the next ten days, and that his physician was of the opinion that he would recover if treated by a specialist.
The motion was presented to and heard by the court upon evidence introduced by both appellant and the state. At the conclusion of the evidence the court overruled the motion, over the objection and exception of appellant.
Three physicians were introduced as witnesses upon the hearing of the motion for a continuance. Dr. Norton testified, in substance, that he was of the opinion that when he was called in May to treat appellant that appellant was suffering from ptomaine poisoning for which he treated him without favorable results, and that he is now of opinion that he has pericarditis which continues over a period of one or two years, and sometimes becomes chronic; that appellant has lost thirty-five or forty pounds; that appellant was and is in no condition to be out of bed, and that in his opinion he is not able to participate in the trial of his case.
Appellant was sitting in court at the time the physicians were testifying.
Dr. Bruce, county physician, testified in substance, that on the first occasion he visited appellant, the symptoms indicated that he was suffering from belladonna poisoning; that his pulse was 120 and his temperature normal; that on his next visits his heart beats were 100 and his temperature still normal; that the pupils of his eyes were dilated; that he never discovered any symptoms of pericarditis; that he had made three reports to the court to the effect that appellant was able to attend court and stand trial without seriously impairing his condition or endangering his life, and that from his observation of him sitting in the court, he was able to remain for the trial of his case.
Dr. J. W. Nichols examined appellant on Sunday July 4, 1937, only two days before the trial and testified, in substance that in his opinion it would not endanger the life of appellant to stand his trial except perhaps it might make him a little nervous.
Appellant's wife testified that he had been sick six or eight weeks,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. State
... ... discretion of the court, and its action will not be disturbed ... on appeal, except where there is a clear abuse of discretion, ... which amounts to a denial of justice. Smith v ... State, 192 Ark. 967, 96 S.W.2d 1; Adams v ... State, 176 Ark. 916, 5 S.W.2d 946; Martin ... v. State, 194 Ark. 711, 109 S.W.2d 676 ... [204 ... Ark. 379] In the case of Banks v. State, ... 185 Ark. 539, 48 S.W.2d 847, 82 A. L. R. 1051, this court ... said: "The first assignment of error is that the court ... erred in refusing to grant the defendant a ... ...
-
Bailey v. State, 4254.
...amounts to a denial of justice. Smith v. State, 192 Ark. 967, 96 S.W.2d 1; Adams v. State, 176 Ark. 916, 5 S.W.2d 946; Martin v. State, 194 Ark. 711, 109 S.W.2d 676. In the case of Banks v. State, 185 Ark. 539, 48 S.W.2d 847, 848, 82 A.L.R. 1051, this court said: "The first assignment of er......
-
Perkins v. State
...Ark. 167, 171, 61 S.W. 915, which hold that a defendant should not be forced to trial while he is of unsound mind. In Martin v. State, 194 Ark. 711, 109 S.W.2d 676, 678, we held there was no abuse of discretion in overruling a motion for a continuance where there was a dispute in the medica......
-
Morris v. State
... ... [197 Ark. 781] shown by the record that the refusal to grant ... a continuance was an arbitrary abuse of discretion ... Gallaher v. State, 78 Ark. 299, 95 S.W ... 463; Adams v. State, 176 Ark. 916, 5 S.W.2d ... 946; Smith v. State, 192 Ark. 967, 96 ... S.W.2d 1; Martin v. State, 194 Ark. 711, ... 109 S.W.2d 676. Reference is made to the following cases to ... support the rule that the trial court's discretion in ... refusing a continuance in a criminal case on account of the ... absence of non-resident witnesses is not an arbitrary abuse ... of his ... ...