Reaves v. State
| Decision Date | 06 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 4916,4916 |
| Citation | 229 Ark. 453,316 S.W.2d 824 |
| Parties | James George REAVES and Lonnie Neal, Appellants, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Maddox, Greer, Maddox & Collier, Harrisburg, for appellant neal.
Sam Anderson, Hot Springs and Holt, Park & Holt, Little Rock, for appellant Reaves.
Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., Bill J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellants, James George Reaves and Lonnie Neal, were jointly charged, tried and convicted of burglary and grand larceny by breaking into the Ben Powell Chevrolet Company at Trumann, Arkansas, and stealing certain property valued at more than $1,000. The amended information also charged prior felony convictions of both appellants. In their verdict the jury left the punishment to the trial court. Reaves was sentenced to ten years for burglary and ten years for grand larceny, the sentences to run consecutively. Neal was given similar sentences of ten years for burglary and five years for grand larceny.
We first consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Sherman Coppell operates and lives in the rear of a restaurant located next to, and in the same building occupied by, the Ben Powell Chevrolet Company at Trumann, Arkansas. Coppell testified that he and his son-in-law, Harry Eubanks, were occupying these living quarters on the night of April 21, 1957. About four o'clock the next morning they heard hammering noises in the office of the automobile company and observed a car backed up to the front of the building. When the telephone operator did not respond to his call in an effort to notify the police, Coppell threw a tub out the rear door of his restaurant toward the place where the office safe of the automobile company was located. He wrote down the Illinois license number of the car as Eubanks read it and saw two or three men leave the auto company store in the Ford automobile after putting some object in it.
The owner of the automobile company was notified and found his safe had been broken into and $980 in checks, money orders and cash missing in addition to an adding machine worth $50 and a 35-horse-power outboard motor and fuel tank. In response to radio alarms, several officers in three automobiles pursued and overtook the Ford automobile in which the appellants and a codefendant, George F. Garner, were riding. The missing adding machine, outboard motor and fuel tank were in the rear trunk of the car and the checks and money orders were scattered along the route. Three loaded pistols, a glove and a 1957 Alabama automobile license plate were also found in the car. Reaves admitted ownership of the car to arresting officers and had $1,048.96 in his possession and Neal had $48.46 on his person. Both parties had previously been convicted of felonies as charged in the information.
Appellants declined to offer any testimony in contradiction to that adduced by the state. When considered in the light most favorable to the state, this testimony was sufficient to sustain the verdict. Aside from the evidence directly connecting appellants with the burglary and larceny, we have frequently held that the possession of recently stolen property, if unexplained to the satisfaction of the jury, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of either larceny or receiving stolen property. Sons v. State, 116 Ark. 357, 172 S.W. 1029; Shoop v. State, 209 Ark. 498, 190 S.W.2d 988.
Appellants next contend that the court erred in the admission of certain testimony regarding the ownership and identification of the adding machine and outboard motor recovered from the car occupied by appellants at the time of their arrest. T. M. Hunn, manager of the Ben Powell Chevrolet Company, testified that he compared the serial number of the adding machine recovered from appellants' car with that taken from a list of company property kept in his office in the usual course of business and that the two numbers were identical. Another witness gave similar testimony with reference to the serial number of the outboard motor. Appellants now argue that this testimony was inadmissible as hearsay evidence under our holding in Jackson v. State, 226 Ark. 731, 293 S.W.2d 699. In that case we held that the rule excluding hearsay testimony extends to written as well as oral statements, and that evidence otherwise incompetent as hearsay is not admissible merely because it is written or printed. The only objection made by appellant to the testimony at the trial was that the witness himself did not actually make the list or record and, hence, was not in position to know whether it was correct or not. It should be noted that neither the serial number nor the list of either item was ever offered in evidence. If it had been, the State would perhaps be correct in its contention that it would have been admissible under our statute (Ark.Stats. Sec. 28-928). The statement by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State, 5186
...the trial, it would be often a difficult matter to find a judge that would not be disqualified. * * *' See also Reaves and Neal v. State, 229 Ark. 453, 316 S.W.2d 824 (Repl.1958); State v. Flynn, 31 Ark. 35 (1896), and 48 C.J.S. Judges, § 82 at p. 1061, from which we '* * * A judge is not d......
-
Fisher v. State
...543 (1969); Lillard v. State, 236 Ark. 74, 365 S.W.2d 144 (1963); Hays v. State, 230 Ark. 731, 324 S.W.2d 520 (1959); Reaves v. State, 229 Ark. 453, 316 S.W.2d 824 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 944 79 S.Ct. 723, 3 L.Ed.2d 676 (1959); Grays v. State, 219 Ark. 367, 242 S.W.2d 701 (1951); Sim......
- Lindsey v. State, 4911
-
Stewart v. State, 5005
...against the law.' For similar holdings by this court see: Garner v. State, 184 Ark. 1093, 44 S.W.2d 1092; and Reaves and Neal v. State, 229 Ark. 453, 316 S.W.2d 824. For reasons above stated the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed. ...