Miller v. State
| Decision Date | 01 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | 204 |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 1001,120 Ark. 492 |
| Parties | MILLER v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Brundidge & Neelly, for appellant.
In an indictment for larceny the allegation of the ownership of the horse must be proven. 73 Ark. 32; 97 Ark. 1; 55 Ark. 244; 108 Ark. 418. The proof is not sufficient to fix the ownership of the horse in Jerome Jarard.
The closing argument of the prosecuting attorney was highly prejudicial and outside the record. 58 Ark. 368; 58 Ark. 473; 61 Ark. 130; 63 Ark. 174; 65 Ark. 625; 70 Ark. 305; 72 Ark 427.
Wallace Davis, Attorney General, Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.
The ownership of the property was sufficiently proven.
The argument of the prosecuting attorney was not prejudicial.
Appellant brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction for grand larceny for the theft of a horse, the property of one, Jerome Jarard.
It appears from the testimony that the horse was taken from Bald Knob about February 27, 1913, and was traced from there and found in the possession of one, Hodges, in Jackson county, who also had in his possession an overcoat and some papers, insurance policies, tax receipts and a deed to Wiley Miller.
Several witnesses testified that they saw a man riding a horse of the description of the stolen one the day after the alleged theft and identified the defendant as the man.
Defendant denied having stolen the horse or ever having had it in his possession and introduced proof strongly supporting his defense of an alibi. He admitted that the coat and the papers in the pockets found in the possession of Hodges, who had the stolen horse, were his and explained that the coat had been stolen from him out of the station at Hoxie, where he had left it upon going out for a sandwich; he said upon his return he saw a negro running away with the coat and chased him for some distance down the railroad, but was not able to overtake him, that he had taken his papers to Hoxie with the expectation of borrowing some money.
Another witness who did not know defendant testified that the negro who was supposed to have stolen the horse, jumped out of a wagon near Newport, leaving an overcoat with the papers in the pocket that belonged to Wiley Miller.
The good reputation of defendant was proved by many witnesses. The prosecuting attorney, in his closing argument to the jury, over the objection of defendant, made the following statement:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...because it gives the appearance that the improper argument has not only the sanction but the endorsement of the court. Miller v. State, 120 Ark. 492, 179 S.W. 1001; Hays v. State, 169 Ark. 1173, 278 S.W. 15; Elder v. State, 69 Ark. 648, 65 S.W. 938. It has even been said that the overruling......
-
Mays v. State, CR78-84
...because it gives the appearance that the improper argument has not only the sanction but the endorsement of the court. Miller v. State, 120 Ark. 492, 179 S.W. 1001; Hays v. State, 169 Ark. 1173, 278 S.W. 15; Elder v. State, 69 Ark. 648, 65 S.W. 938. It has even been said that the overruling......
-
Leaks v. State
...prosecutor's highly improper and prejudicial closing argument warranted reversal of the conviction. Id. Similarly, in Miller v. State, 120 Ark. 492, 179 S.W. 1001 (1915), the prosecutor implied in the closing argument that the defendant, who was charged with theft of a horse, was also guilt......
-
Webb v. State
...by specific acts or deeds. The prosecution cannot resort to the accused's bad character as a circumstance from which to infer guilt. 120 Ark. 492; Ib. 458; 91 Id. Appellant did not put in evidence his good character, and the State had no right by way of contradiction to show his bad charact......