Reed v. State
| Decision Date | 02 January 1911 |
| Citation | 133 S.W. 604,97 Ark. 156 |
| Parties | REED v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; George W. Hays, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Marsh & Flenniken, for appellants.
The court erred in refusing to give a peremptory instruction in favor of these appellants. There is no evidence whatever upon which to base a verdict of conviction. The most that is shown is that a crime was committed; nothing whatever to connect these defendants with the commission of that crime.
Hal L Norwood, Attorney General, and William H. Rector, Assistant for appellee.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilt as to both defendants.
The defendants, Sheppard Reed and Spurge Neasley, were convicted of the crime of grand larceny; and they urged on this appeal as the sole ground for a reversal of the judgment, that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant their conviction. They were charged with stealing seventy-five dollars in money, the property of one George W. Moore. Mr. Moore conducted a mercantile business at Three Creeks, where there was a small collection of houses. His store house was a small frame building, in a portion of which he slept, and he kept a safe in the southwest corner of the house from which he claimed the money was taken. Late in the evening in March, 1910, he prepared to go to supper, which he procured at a short distance from his store house. He counted the money which he had then on hand, which consisted of $ 60 in currency and $ 15 in silver. This he placed in his safe, together with a promissory note owned by him, and then left to get his supper, and returned to the store in a short time thereafter. He did not lock his safe door upon leaving for his supper, but did lock the door of his store. Upon his return to the store he sat down and read his newspaper, and about 8 or 9 o'clock the defendants came in the store. He asked them what they wanted, and one of them bought some peanuts. In a few minutes thereafter a brother of defendant Reed and one Will Burns came into the store, and shortly thereafter defendant Neasley stated that he wanted to order a pair of pants, and desired Mr. Moore to take his measure. Mr. Moore had a sample book, which was on a counter about 12 to 15 feet from the safe, and he and the other parties went to the counter to select the sample from the book. Mr. Moore stood at the rear of the counter, and three of the parties stood in front thereof, and defendant Reed stood just back of them and nearer to the safe. The only light in the house was a lamp which Mr. Moore placed on the counter before him as they examined the sample book, and it was quite dark at the place where the safe was located. Mr. Moore and the parties remained in this position for a few minutes--three of the parties immediately across the counter in front of him and Reed just back of them and nearer to the safe. Mr. Moore then requested Reed to take the measure of Neasley for the pants, which he did. While the measurement was being taken, another party, named Dallas Lockhart, came into the store, and remained immediately near Mr. Moore during the time he was there. After the measure was taken, all the five parties left the store, and shortly thereafter Mr. Moore locked his safe door and then retired. On the following morning he discovered upon opening his safe that the above money and note were missing. A witness testified that he heard parties pass by his house, which was situated a short distance from Moore's store, presumably just after defendants had left the store, and from their voices he recognized the defendants being in the crowd. The house of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...529; 83 Id. 192; 85 Id. 360; 117 Id. 296; 118 Id. 349. Mere suspicion or conjecture is not sufficient, the testimony must be substantial. 97 Ark. 156 and cases 3. A party can not corroborate himself by proving what he said or did at another time. 92 Ark. 472; 116 Id. 482. The testimony of M......
-
Poole v. State
...reversal, to remand the cause for another trial, and we have chosen to do so in this instance. In this connection see also: Reed v. State, 97 Ark. 156, 133 S.W. 604; Johnson v. State, 210 Ark. 881, 197 S.W.2d 936; Grigson and Gibson v. State, 221 Ark. 14, 251 S.W.2d 1021; and Anderson v. St......
-
Hammond v. State
...support of this argument appellant relies on what this court said with reference to circumstantial evidence in the cases of Reed v. State, 97 Ark. 156, 133 S.W. 604, Turner v. Walnut Ridge, 186 Ark. 899, 56 S.W.2d 759. In the Reed case [97 Ark. 156, 133 S.W. 606] the court, after reviewing ......
-
Edens v. State
... ... Even if the Majority considers the evidence offered by the State to be weak (which I do not), nevertheless there was some evidence of guilt offered, and it may be strengthened on a new trial; so the case should be remanded according to such cases as: Reed v ... State, 97 Ark. 156, 133 S.W. 604; Johnson v. State, 210 Ark. 881, 197 S.W.2d 936; Grigson v. State, 221 Ark. 14, 251 S.W.2d 1021; Anderson v. State, 226 Ark. 498, 290 S.W.2d 846; and Poole v. State, 234 Ark. 593, 353 S.W.2d 359. Each of these cases involved violation of the criminal laws, ... ...