McLaughlin v. State

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SMITH, J.
• Citation: McLaughlin v. State, 174 S.W. 234, 117 Ark. 154 (Ark. 1915)
• Decision Date: 22 February 1915
• Docket Number: 208
• Parties: MCLAUGHLIN v. STATE

174 S.W. 234

117 Ark. 154

MCLAUGHLIN v. STATE

No. 208

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 22, 1915

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; Jeptha H. Evans Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

John D. Arbuckle and J. V. Bourland, for appellant.

The indictment charges no crime. The evidence is wholly insufficient to convict and the instructions are misleading.

Wm L. Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.

1. The indictment sufficiently charges the crime. 60 Ark. 521; 79 Id. 293.

2. There is no bill of exceptions. It was not filed in time. 96 Ark. 175; 169 S.W. 790.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of rape under the following indictment (omitting formal parts):

"The said Neal McLaughlin, on the 14th day of June, 1914, in the county and district aforesaid, in and upon one Martha Byford, a female person, forcibly, violently, and feloniously did rape and assault her, the said Martha Byford, then and there violently, forcibly and against her will and consent feloniously did ravish and carnally know, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas."

It is insisted that the indictment is bad, and does not charge a crime, in that the "assault" is not charged to have been made until after the alleged "rape," and that the indictment is multifarious in alleging that the appellant "violently, forcibly and against her will and consent feloniously did ravish and carnally know."

We think the indictment in this case is sufficient. It follows very closely the indictment set out in the case of Downs v. State, 60 Ark. 521, 31 S.W. 149, which was there held sufficient. This indictment meets all the requirements of the law. Beard v. State, 79 Ark. 293, 95 S.W. 995.

It is further insisted that the evidence is insufficient to support the charge, and that error was committed in the instructions given.

These questions are not before us for review. Such questions can only be presented by a bill of exceptions filed within the time allowed by law and fixed by the court. The record shows that the bill of exceptions in this case was not filed for more than a month after the expiration of the time allowed for that purpose. Appellant filed his motion for a new trial on the 2d of October, and was given thirty days within which to file his bill of exceptions, but no bill of exceptions was tendered to and signed by the judge until the...