Nelson v. State
| Decision Date | 19 May 1919 |
| Docket Number | 221 |
| Parties | NELSON v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lonoke Circuit Court; George W. Clark, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
J. B Reed, for appellant.
The verdict is not sustained by the evidence. There was no "substantial" evidence to sustain it. 50 So. 374. Improper questions were asked and improper remarks were made by the State's attorney. Ib. The collateral matters presented to the jury were highly prejudicial and appellant did not have a fair trial. Ib.
John D Arbuckle, Attorney General, and Robert C. Knox, Assistant for appellee.
1. There was no error in the opening remarks of the State's attorney. 66 Ark. 16.
2. Nor any error in permitting the prosecuting attorney to cross-examine defendant as to other crimes. 46 Ark. 141; 58 Id. 473; 60 Id. 450; 100 Id. 321. The court did not abuse its discretion. 75 Ark. 574; Ib. 142. But no objections were made and it is too late now. 80 Id. 158.
3. There was no error in permitting Len Eagle to testify as to threats made by defendant against the prosecuting witnesses. 34 Ark. 257; 70 Id. 107.
4. The evidence sustains the conviction. 82 Id. 372; 104 Id. 162.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and the principal contention on this appeal is that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The testimony of one Ross was the only direct testimony tending to establish appellant's guilt. Ross testified that he obtained money from one Mr. Swaim with which to buy whiskey, and that he purchased the whiskey from appellant in Lonoke County, where the venue in the case is laid in the indictment. Ross was rigidly cross-examined, and according to his testimony as copied in the record he was to some extent vacillating and uncertain in some of his statements, but he testified that he purchased the liquor from appellant. His credibility was a question for the jury, and we cannot say that there was not substantial evidence in support of the verdict.
Appellant was introduced as a witness and denied that he sold whiskey, but this contradiction was a question for the jury to determine whether or not appellant was, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty of the offense charged in the indictment.
It is next contended that certain remarks of the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement to the jury before the testimony was introduced constituted prejudicial error. The remarks objected to, as copied in the record were as follows: "The prosecuting witness, George Ross, after making and inquiring and having information as to the defendant selling whiskey, and another man by the name of Strong, and talked with him about the matter." The remainder of the statement of the prosecuting attorney is not brought into the record and we have no means of knowing definitely just the connection in which this remark was made, but we assume that it was a part of the preliminary statement leading up to an outline of the testimony of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shinn v. State
...75 Ark. 574. The evidence so elicited was admissible for the purpose of reflecting upon the credibility of appellant. 138 Ark. 465; 139 Ark. 13. shotgun shells, fired without a load, in the court room and introduced in evidence, were so introduced at the request of both parties, and appella......
-
Daniels v. State
... ... While the ... acts of each conspirator emanate from him individually, they ... are a part of a common purpose or design, so that evidence of ... such acts is relevant although each component act may ... constitute an independent offense. Nelson v. State, ... 51 Ga.App. 207, 212, 180 S.E. 16. The true question is ... whether the evidence is relevant to the issue on trial and ... shows some logical connection and reveals knowledge, design, ... or plan, and if it shows this, it is not excluded merely ... because the act sought to be ... ...
-
Daniels v. State
...General to the jury as to what he expects to prove in a criminal case. Sterling v. State, 89 Ga. 807 (1), 15 S.E. 743; Nelson v. State, 139 Ark. 13, 212 S.W. 93(1); Herring v. State, 10 Ga.App. 88(2), 72 S.E. 600; People v. Bundy, 295 111. 322, 129 N.E. 189(10). 4. Special grounds 8, 9, 10,......
-
Shinn v. State
...State, 91 Ark. 555, 121 S. W. 927; Hunt v. State, 114 Ark. 239, 169 S. W. 773, L. R. A. 1915B, 131, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 533; Nelson v. State, 139 Ark. 13, 212 S. W. After appellant closed his case, the state called several witnesses in rebuttal, among others one Everett Gray, who was asked abo......