Paxton v. State

Citation170 S.W. 80
Decision Date12 October 1914
Docket Number(No. 166.)
PartiesPAXTON v. STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

Appeal from Circuit Court, Little River County; Jeff. T. Cowling, Judge.

Seth Paxton was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Appellant was tried upon the charge of unlawfully selling liquor, and the state offered evidence tending to show that he had made two separate sales, but the proof concerning one of these alleged sales shows only that he procured whisky for another, and this proof is insufficient to sustain a conviction for making a sale. See Woods v. State, 170 S. W. 79.

The proof concerning the second alleged sale was made by witnesses named McNutt and Nisler, and their evidence was entirely sufficient to sustain the conviction had it been passed upon by a jury. Upon the cross-examination of these witnesses, however, they testified that they were employed by an anti-saloon league to secure evidence against violators of the liquor laws and to appear and testify in these criminal prosecutions. These witnesses were white men, and testified that they received $5 per day and expenses, and that these expenses included their railroad fare, any whisky which they might purchase, and their board. They further testified that they were seeking to secure evidence against certain negroes, and that in their efforts to secure this evidence they associated with these negroes, ate and slept at their houses, and McNutt shot craps with them, and Nisler loaned money to others who played in the game, and both participated in drinking whisky with the negroes after having purchased it.

The defendant did not testify in his own behalf, nor did he offer any evidence in support of his plea of not guilty, and, at the conclusion of the state's evidence, the court directed the jury to return a verdict of guilty,

which was done, and this appeal has been prosecuted from that judgment.

Steel, Lake & Head, of De Queen, for appellant. Wm. L. Moose, Atty. Gen., and Jno. P. Streepey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SMITH, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is settled that the court may, even in a criminal case where imprisonment is not a part of the punishment, direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty, and the action of trial courts in so doing has been several times approved by this court. But this should be done only when the evidence is reasonable and consistent and the witnesses stand unimpeached on account of either bias or prejudice, and nothing is shown in the evidence which would raise any question as to their veracity, and the evidence offered is of such a nature that it would be arbitrary and capricious for a jury to refuse to believe the witnesses, and the proof is such that reasonable minds could draw only one conclusion from the evidence, that conclusion being the guilt of the party.

In the case of St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Trotter, 89 Ark. 273, 116 S. W. 227, an instruction was approved in which a jury was told:

"That you are not bound to accept as conclusive the statement of the witnesses that the engine was in good order and carefully operated, although there may be no direct evidence to contradict them, but you will consider all the circumstances and evidence bearing upon the condition of the engine and mode of operating it, and the circumstances under which the fire took place, in arriving at your verdict."

It is the province of the judge to pass upon any question involving the competency of the witness and the admissibility of the evidence offered; but it is the province of the jury to pass upon the weight of the evidence and upon the credibility of the witness; and the trial judge may direct a verdict only where the evidence raises no material question of fact for the jury's determination; in other words, where the evidence raises questions which at last are ones at law.

The right to impeach a witness by cross-examination is universally recognized. The leading case in our reports on that subject is the case of Hollingsworth v. State, reported in 53 Ark. 387, 14 S. W. 41, where, in an able discussion of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT