Norton v. State, 5105
| Decision Date | 09 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 5105,5105 |
| Citation | 376 S.W.2d 267,237 Ark. 783 |
| Parties | Osie NORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
F. C. Crow, Hope, for appellant.
Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., by Richard B. Adkisson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellant, aged nineteen, was charged by information with having raped a girl under the age of sixteen. The jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of carnal abuse and fixed his punishment at three years imprisonment.
There is no real question about the sufficiency of the evidence. The accused admitted the act of intercourse but testified that it took place with the cooperation and consent of the prosecuting witness. According to the proof she was then only fifteen years old; so her consent would not be a defense to the charge of carnal abuse. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-3406 (1947); Reed v. State, 175 Ark. 1170 (mem.), 299 S.W. 757.
It is insisted that the trial court erred in allowing the mother of the prosecutrix to state her daughter's age, the objection being that the child's birth certificate would be the best evidence. This identical contention was rejected in Tugg v. State, 206 Ark. 161, 174 S.W.2d 374.
At the pretrial conference counsel for the accused asked for the names of the State's witnesses. The prosecuting attorney supplied all the names except that of Katy Thompson, whose name he could not recall. He explained, however, that she lived in a certain neighborhood, that A. W. Keith, a deputy sheriff, knew her name, and that he (the prosecutor) would furnish the name when he returned to his office. In fact, however, the prosecuting attorney overlooked the matter of communicating the requested information to the defense attorney before the trial. Even so there was no error in permitting Katy Thompson to testify, for the defense could have learned her identity simply by making a telephone call to the prosecuting attorney or to Keith. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the State unfairly produced a surprise witness.
The court was right in allowing Keith to relate an oral confession that was made to him by the accused. Under our holding in Finn v. State, 127 Ark. 204, 191 S.W. 899, this oral confession was not rendered inadmissible by the fact that a different confession, made several days later to a deputy prosecuting attorney, was reduced to writing. Moreover, on the witness stand Norton in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamble v. State
...the sheriff was not testifying about the contents of the written statement. Stout, 244 Ark. at 680, 426 S.W.2d 800. In Norton v. State, 237 Ark. 783, 376 S.W.2d 267 (1964), this court again noted Finn and stated that even where a confession had been reduced to writing, oral evidence of othe......
-
Lomax v. State
...(his) testimony' if necessary. It cannot be said, therefore, that appellant was misled to her prejudice or surprise. Norton v. State, 237 Ark. 783, 376 S.W.2d 267 (1964). Nor can we agree with appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant appellant's motion for a......
-
Johnson v. State
...the officers in the case at bar, along with competent proof of the commission of this crime, would have been admissible. Norton v. State, 237 Ark. 783, 376 S.W.2d 267. Moreover, appellant admitted at trial that he had made such statements to the officers and confessed to other crimes as wel......
-
Thorn v. State, 5213
...witnesses. At any rate, the statutory requirement is merely directory. Baker v. State, 215 Ark. 851, 223 S.W.2d 809. In Norton v. State, 237 Ark. 783, 376 S.W.2d 267, the prosecuting attorney had furnished the names of all state witnesses, except Katy Thompson, the prosecutor telling the de......