Roach v. State, 4758
| Decision Date | 07 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 4758,4758 |
| Citation | 222 Ark. 738,262 S.W.2d 647 |
| Parties | ROACH v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Bates, Poe & Bates, Waldron, for appellant.
Tom Gentry, Atty. Gen., Thorp Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and from the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court he prosecutes this appeal, based on several allegations of error.
Since the insufficiency of the evidence is not included in the allegations relied on by appellant we deem it necessary to set out only such as is necessary to an understanding of the questions hereinafter discussed.
Appellant was convicted for contributing to the delinquency of Tom Stahl, and in the course of the trial testimony was introduced which tended to show that the same conduct complained of had occurred in connection with other persons. Much of appellant's brief is devoted to the alleged error contained in the court's instruction No. 11 as it is copied in his brief. As so copied it contains this language: 'So, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did * * * by any act, cause, encourage or contribute to the delinquency of the prosecuting witnesses or any of them * * *'. It appears however that the italicized words were lined out of the instruction and were erroneously left in the transcript by the clerk and that he made the correction after it was used by appellant's attorney. Appellant was of course advised of this discrepancy by appellee's brief but he makes no contention that the instruction as corrected was not the one given to the jury. If the transcript is incorrect the burden was upon appellant to have it corrected at the proper time and in the proper manner. In this instance however we are not left in doubt because there is a notation at the bottom of the instruction signed by the trial judge stating that it was corrected before it was given to the jury. As so corrected it contains no error.
Appellant alleges as error the refusal of the trial court to give his requested instruction No. 20 which would have told the jury it must find that Stahl committed some act of delinquency before it could find the defendant guilty of contributing to his delinquency. The requested instruction was not a correct declaration of the law and therefore the court did not commit error in refusing to give it. See Williams v. City of Malvern, Ark., 261 S.W.2d 6.
As part of its instructions the trial court submitted for the consideration of the jury Ark.Stats. § 45-204 which describes delinquency and Ark.Stats. § 45-239 which deals with persons contributing to delinquency. Appellant argues that this was error because much of the statutes had no direct bearing on the charge. Regardless of any merit that might be contained in appellant's contention we are not at liberty to consider it here because the objection made was en masse and no specific objection is shown to have been made. There were other correct instructions given in the case and consequently an objection en masse was not sufficient. See Coffer v. State, 211 Ark. 1010, 204 S.W.2d 376.
Another allegation of error is that the trial court refused to give appellant's instruction No. 19 which would have told the jury in effect that if other witnesses participated in the commission of the offense they would be considered as accomplices. This refusal by the court was not error because there is no testimony in the record on which to base such an instruction even though it had been otherwise correct. Since there was no testimony tending to show that Stahl in any way gave his consent he was therefore not an accomplice, and further corroboration was not necessary. See Gerlach v. State, 217 Ark. 102, 229 S.W.2d 37.
Again it is contended by appellant that the court erred in allowing the state to introduce testimony tending to show that appellant had on previous occasions engaged in similar conduct with other minors. We recognize of course the general rule that the commission of a crime can not be established by proof of the commission of other crimes, but that is not the situation here. The record discloses that after the introduction of the testimony complained of the court offered to admonish the jury to consider it only for the purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alford v. State
...unnatural sexual acts proof of prior similar offenses has been received. Hummel v. State, 210 Ark. 471, 196 S.W.2d 594; Roach v. State, Ark., 262 S.W.2d 647. Such evidence shows not that the accused is a criminal but that he has 'a depraved sexual instinct,' to quote Judge Parker's phrase i......
-
Tarkington v. State, 5494
...for which he is on trial. Tolbert v. State, 244 Ark. 1067, 428 S.W.2d 264; Wood v. State, 248 Ark. 109, 450 S.W.2d 537; Roach v. State, 222 Ark. 738, 262 S.W.2d 647; Parks v. State, 136 Ark. 562, 208 S.W. 435; Puckett v. State, 194 Ark. 449, 108 S.W.2d 468; Larmon v. State, 171 Ark. 1188, 2......
-
Kagebein v. State
...sexual acts. Ward v. State, 236 Ark. 878, 370 S.W.2d 425 (1963); Alford v. State, 223 Ark. 330, 266 S.W.2d 804 (1954); Roach v. State, 222 Ark. 738, 262 S.W.2d 647 (1953); Hummel v. State, 210 Ark. 471, 196 S.W.2d 594 (1946); Hearn v. State, 206 Ark. 206, 174 S.W.2d 452 (1943). One reason f......
-
Hulsey v. State
...it was his duty to so inform the court and give it an opportunity to make a retraction or explanation to the jury. Roach v. State, 222 Ark. 738, 262 S.W.2d 647 (1953). We also note the trial court gave the following I have not intended by anything I have said or done, or by any questions th......