Moss & Clark v. State

• Decision Date: 27 September 1937
• Docket Number: Crim. 4051
• Citation: 108 S.W.2d 782,194 Ark. 524
• Parties: MOSS AND CLARK v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

108 S.W.2d 782

194 Ark. 524

MOSS AND CLARK v. STATE

Crim. 4051

Supreme Court of Arkansas

September 27, 1937

Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; Dexter Bush, Judge; affirmed.

Affirmed.

George F. Edwardes, Jr., for appellants.

Jack Holt, Attorney General, and John P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.

OPINION

BAKER J.

Although one of the principal contentions in this case urged by the appellants is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction, we think it unnecessary to set forth with minute detail the evidence relied upon by the state. The defendants were charged with obtaining money under false pretenses and we have carefully examined all the testimony and have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient substantial evidence to warrant the submission of the case to a jury.

We agree that the evidence is not altogether satisfactory and that upon some points it is somewhat meager; but there are certain facts and circumstances testified about which, if believed, warrant a conclusion that the conduct of the defendants was reprehensible in the highest degree. From the evidence, however, the following conclusions might well have been reached by the jury in the determination of the facts.

Gates Carlisle, Jr., went by bus from Finley, Oklahoma, to Texarkana. Shortly after he had reached the bus station, and while still standing near it, he was approached by Ray Moss, whom he had never seen before and who asked him how long he was going to stay over and if he were acquainted with the town. Moss also stated that he was having to wait for a bus and the two went for a walk. They were shortly thereafter approached by John Clark, who sought information from them about zoos, parks and places of entertainment, and who advised them he had been down in Louisiana selling some land for his sister and that he had gotten $ 1,200 more than she had expected and that he was going to pocket that. Clark proposed to Moss that they match money and upon Carlisle advising that he did not know the game Moss and Clark matched coins and a claim was made that Moss had won $ 100 from Clark. Carlisle was induced to match coins also. Clark made, at least, a pretense of counting out and paying over $ 100 to Moss. Carlisle said he observed that this money was counted out and delivered. It was then insisted that Carlisle also owed $ 100 to Moss and that he must pay over. Upon this insistence and under the belief that Moss had won his money, he delivered over $ 19, all he had except a few coins, less than a dollar in amount.

About this time a police officer approached, took the three into custody and started to the police station with them. Moss furtively handed back to Carlisle the amount that Carlisle had presumptively lost in the matching game with the remark, "You don't know anything about this." At the police station all of the parties were searched. Moss had only about $ 11, Carlisle had the $ 19, plus the fractional part of a dollar in coins, and Clark had less than a dollar. Moss claimed to have "hitch-hiked" from El Dorado to Texarkana. He and Clark were claiming to be strangers to each other as they were to Carlisle.

Moss' wife telephoned the police station and made inquiry about him and it was discovered that they had gone to Texarkana in a car. Clark claimed to have gone to Texarkana with a traveling man from Pine Bluff, although he claimed his home was in Canada, at or near Montreal. Neither Clark nor Moss testified at the time of the trial and made no explanation of these inconsistencies in their statements made to the police officers, and as shown in the trial. The jury might well have concluded that Moss and Clark were operating in concert to obtain what money or valuables Carlisle possessed, and they succeeded in getting nearly all of his money, although it was returned after their arrest.

In the statement above, to the effect that neither Clark nor Moss testified in the case, we are not suggesting that that fact is any evidence or that it was so regarded by the jury. It is patent, however, that the defendants knew their conduct was under investigation and scrutiny and that the jury would interpret all the testimony offered during the trial and make reasonable inferences therefrom; that the contradictions and conduct were not consistent with uprightness and honesty.

There...