Nash v. State
| Decision Date | 27 September 1915 |
| Docket Number | 137 |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 159,120 Ark. 157 |
| Parties | NASH v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; Robert J. Lea Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
No brief was filed for appellant.
Wm. L Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.
1. It is not erroneous to refuse to exclude all of the testimony of a witness, where part of it is admissible. 86 Ark. 23; 92 Ark. 421.
2. While evidence of one crime can not be introduced as a circumstance from which to infer guilt of the crime for which a defendant is being tried, yet if such evidence also tends to prove guilt of the crime charged in the indictment, it may be admitted. 117 Ark. 296.
Appellant was indicted for the crime of robbery alleged to have been committed by taking $ 20 from the person of one J. F. Williams. Upon his trial appellant was convicted and sentenced to a term of seven years in the State penitentiary.
Williams testified that the robbery was committed near the corner of Seventh and Arch Streets, in the City of Little Rock, on the night of March 3. That he was held up by three men, who took two ten dollar bills and some small change from his pocket and a bar check issued by one of the saloons in the City of Little Rock. After Williams had been robbed one of the robbers said to him, "Beat it, don't stop, turn around or look back," and Williams walked about twenty steps to an electric light post, and stopped behind it. He stood there and watched the robbers walk down Seventh Street, and while standing there he saw three officers and told them that he had been robbed, and the officers replied that another man had been robbed only a minute before, and as Williams and the officers started down Seventh street they saw robbers holding up still another man. Upon the approach of the officers all of the robbers fled except one named Hilliard, who was commanded by the officers to throw up his hands, and was shot and killed by the officers when he refused to do so. Williams recognized Hilliard as one of the men who had robbed him, and after appellant's arrest he also recognized him as one of the men who had held him up. The money taken from Williams was found in Hilliard's possession, together with the bar check.
A witness named Schuh testified that he was one of the men who had been held up and that he was robbed at a point only fifty or sixty yards east of the place where Williams had been held up, but on the opposite side of the street. This witness saw Hilliard after his death and recognized him as one of the men who had robbed him, and he also identified Nash as one of the robbers who held him up. He saw three men holding up Williams, but he did not say that he recognized appellant as one of them, although he did testify that he saw appellant in that vicinity that night.
A police officer named Whitlock testified that he was one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alford v. State
...to the general rule, as to show motive, Shuffield v. State, 120 Ark. 458, 179 S.W. 650, to rebut the plea of an alibi, Nash v. State, 120 Ark. 157, 179 S.W. 159, to prove the transaction as a whole, Autrey v. State, 113 Ark. 347, 168 S.W. 556, and so forth. The present case centers upon pro......
-
Tarkington v. State, 5494
...469, 254 S.W. 1069; Keese and Pilgreen v. State, 223 Ark. 261, 265 S.W.2d 542; Reed v. State, 54 Ark. 621, 16 S.W. 819; Nash v. State, 120 Ark. 157, 179 S.W. 159; Cain v. State, 149 Ark. 616, 233 S.W. One of the most widely recognized applications of the rule is in cases where the modus ope......
-
State v. Lyle
... ... 236, 27 A. 446, 49 Am. St. Rep ... 766; State v. Leroy, 61 Wash. 405, 112 P. 635; ... Leeper v. State, 29 Tex.App. 63, 14 S.W. 398, ... affirmed in 139 U.S. 462, 11 S.Ct. 577, 35 L.Ed. 225; ... McCue v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 137, 170 S.W. 280, ... Ann. Cas. 1918C, 674; Nash v. State, 120 Ark. 157, ... 179 S.W. 159; State v. Hetrick, 84 Kan. 157, 113 P ... 383, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 642; Barnett v. State, 104 ... Ohio St. 298, 135 N.E. 647. See notes, 3 A. L. R. 1540, and ... 22 A. L. R. 1016. If admissible to prove identity, the state ... was entitled to the ... ...
-
Clark v. State
...to the general rule, as to show motive, Shuffield v. State, 120 Ark. 458, 179 S.W. 650, to rebut the plea of an alibi, Nash v. State, 120 Ark. 157, 179 S.W. 159, to prove the transaction as a whole, Autrey v. State, 113 Ark. 347, 168 S.W. 556 and so forth. The present case centers upon proo......