Nowlin v. State, 5713
| Decision Date | 19 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5713,5713 |
| Citation | 481 S.W.2d 320,252 Ark. 870 |
| Parties | James W. NOWLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Harold L. Hall, Little Rock, for appellant.
Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., by John D. Bridgforth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
James W. Nowlin, appellant herein, was convicted of first degree rape and his punishment fixed by the jury at 35 years imprisonment. From the judgment entered in accordance with such verdict, appellant brings this appeal. For reversal, three points are asserted, which we proceed to discuss in the order listed.
The record reflects that appellant, on July 6, 1971, entered a plea of not guilty, and the case was set for a jury trial on September 2, 1971. Appellant filed a motion through counsel (not the same counsel as on appeal) setting out that he was under the impression that the case would not be tried until September 21. It was also asserted that the case had been set down for September 21 along with another charge pending against appellant, and the state was to give appellant adequate notice as to which case it elected to try on September 21; that said notice was not given until August 27. As stated, the allegations in this motion are not in accord with the record, which only reflects that the case was set for September 2. It would thus appear that ample notice had been given of the date of trial. Of course, motions for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not reverse unless the court has abused its discretion. Nash v. State, 248 Ark. 323, 451 S.W.2d 869. Under the record herein, we certainly cannot say that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance.
It is next asserted that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. We do not agree. While it is true that the evidence was not the strongest that is sometimes introduced in this type of case, and while there were some conflicts between the testimony of the prosecuting witness, Gail Huffman, and her principal corroborating witness, Pamela Archer, these girls did offer evidence sufficient in law and fact to sustain the conviction, if believed by the jury. The testimony on the part of the state revealed that Miss Huffman, age 15, and Miss Archer, age 14, went to the Nowlin home with Roger Middlebrook and Gary Nowlin, the son of the appellant. Both girls testified that they were raped by Middlebrook and appellant, James W. Nowlin, who had come into the house. Miss Huffman described the attack on her by appellant, stating that she was crying, struggling, and trying to stop Nowlin, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kitchen v. State, CR
...there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. No corroboration of the testimony of the victims was required. Nowlin v. State, 252 Ark. 870, 481 S.W.2d 320; Nowlin v. State, 253 Ark. 57, 484 S.W.2d 339; Rogers v. State, 237 Ark. 437, 373 S.W.2d 705; Stevens v. State, 231 Ark. 734, 3......
-
Wolf's v. State
...absent the showing of abuse of discretion. Scates and Blaylock v. State, 244 Ark. 333, 424 S.W.2d 876 (1968) and Nowlin v. State, 252 Ark. 870, 481 S.W.2d 320 (1972). Furthermore, the burden is upon the appellant to demonstrate abuse of discretion. Perez v. State, 236 Ark. 921, 370 S.W.2d 6......
-
Freeman v. State
...discretion of the trial court, and the action of that tribunal will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Nowlin v. State, 252 Ark. 870, 481 S.W.2d 320 and Perez v. State, 236 Ark. 921, 370 S.W.2d 613. In Perez, it was pointed out that the burden rests on an appellant to demon......
-
Hughes v. State
...purpose of proving that the statement was made, and not for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted. Nowlin v. State, 252 Ark. 870, 481 S.W.2d 320 (1972); and A.R.E. Even if the proffered testimony were hearsay, so was that of the other witnesses. I fail to understand why th......