Reese v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1905 |
| Citation | 88 S.W. 841,76 Ark. 39 |
| Parties | REESE v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court JAMES S. STEEL, Judge.
Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Feazel & Bishop, for appellant.
The remarks of the prosecuting attorney were improper and prejudicial. 38 Ark. 368; 48 Ark. 106; 65 Ark. 625; 71 Ark 418.
Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee.
These three cases present but one question, and it is practically the same in each case. The prosecuting attorney, in his closing argument, said:
"That in considering the testimony of the defendant, the jury should take into consideration his interest in the result; should consider whether his statement was made in good faith, or merely to avoid conviction; that he (the prosecuting attorney) would not believe any man on oath who would deliberately violate the law by running a blind tiger; that, if he would violate the law in that respect, he would not hesitate to swear a lie to get out of it."
His closing argument in another of the cases contained this statement:
On objection made by the defendant, the court declined to interfere with the argument, and, preserving proper exceptions, the cases are brought here for review.
These statements of the prosecuting attorney are nothing but the expressions of his individual opinion, stated in overforcible terms. The statements do not fall within that class of statements where the attorney makes a witness of himself in his argument, and states facts without the record. These cases may be found discussed in German-American Ins. Co. v. Harper, 70 Ark. 305, 67 S.W. 755; Fort v. State, 74 Ark. 210, 85 S.W. 236; English v. Anderson, 75 Ark. 577, 88 S.W. 583.
An attorney undoubtedly has a right, if his taste and judgment calls for it, to express his individual opinion freely in discussing the facts in evidence, so long as he couches his remarks in language befitting his high profession and the place of its utterance--a temple of justice.
In this case the prosecuting attorney was at perfect liberty to express his opinion freely as to all matters in evidence attacking the credibility of the defendant as a witness provided he framed his argument in proper language and manner. This addressed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Mcmichael
...it to them to decide whether the argument was within the evidence or not. 39 Ark. Law Rep. 151; 103 Ark. 359; 93 Ark. 575; 91 Ark. 579; 76 Ark. 39; Ark. 56; Id. 489; 79 Ark. 25; 82 Ark. 555; 91 Ark. 576; 103 Ark. 356. 4. Instruction 2 given by the court was correct, and instruction 15 reque......
-
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Leslie
...express his opinion in his argument to the jury as to the duty of appellant in making up its train. 76 Ark. 286; 93 Ark. 564; 96 Ark. 547; 76 Ark. 39. KIRBY, J. This is the second appearance of this case in this court, it having heretofore been appealed from the judgment rendered against th......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Aiken
...calls for its reversal. 74 Ark. 259; 90 Ark. 406; 89 Ark. 92; 77 Ark. 73; 91 Ark. 579; 78 Ark. 387; 93 Ark. 144; 75 Ark. 349; 48 Ark. 123; 76 Ark. 39; 87 Ark. 463; 63 Ark. 174; 61 Ark. 130; 70 Ark. 183; 65 625; 93 Ark. 564. McCULLOCH, C. J. WOOD, J., dissenting. OPINION McCULLOCH, C. J. The......
-
Gaston v. State
...her uncorroborated testimony is sufficient. 75 P. 166; 103 Ia. 720; 91 N.W. 191; 59 Vt. 614. Remarks of counsel were not prejudicial. 76 Ark. 39; 88 Ark. 62; 71 Ark. Id. 62; 84 Ark. 131. OPINION FRAUENTHAL, J. The defendant, James Gaston, was convicted of the crime of incest, and he has app......