Sims v. State
| Decision Date | 12 May 1900 |
| Citation | 56 S.W. 1072,68 Ark. 188 |
| Parties | SIMS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court, WM. L. MOOSE, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
J. T Bullock, for appellant.
The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. It was error to require appellant to go to trial upon his co-defendant's second trial. Sand. & H. Dig., § 2189.
Jeff Davis, Attorney General, and Chas. Jacobson,, for appellee.
There was no error in the court's ruling requiring appellant to go to trial before the retrial of his co-defendant.
Two questions are presented in this cause for decision'
First. Did the court err in requiring appellant to go into trial before W. V. Davis, a co-defendant, was acquitted, convicted or finally discharged?
Second. Was the verdict of the jury sustained by evidence?
First. The appellant insists that the court erred in requiring him to go into trial before his co-defendant, W. V. Davis, was again tried, after he (Davis) had been on trial, and the jury impaneled to try him had failed to agree as to his guilt or innocence, and had been discharged. He cites a statute to sustain his contention, which is as follows: "When jointly indicted for a felony, any defendant, requiring it is entitled to a separate trial, and, when the trials are severed, the defendants may elect the order in which they shall stand upon the docket for trial; but if no such election is made, they shall stand in the order in which their names appear upon the indictment." Sand. & H Dig., § 2189. The statute does not provide that they shall be tried in any particular order, without regard to circumstances, but prescribes the order, as to themselves, in which they shall stand on the docket. When they elect in what order they shall stand for trial, they stand in court as they would, had they been indicted separately, and the indictments against them had been docketed in the order they elected. The statute provides only how their cases shall be called for trial. If one is not ready or is not tried when his case is reached, the next in the order of succession stands for trial, like all other eases upon the criminal docket of the court. Because one case stands first on the docket, all other casts coming after it are not postponed when it is continued or passed until after it is tried, yet it stands first upon the docket for trial. The statute fixes only the order in which the cases of defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borland v. State
...17 Enc. of Procedure 290-4. Nor in allowing prosecuting attorney to nol. pros. cases. Secs. 3063, 3140, Crawford & Moses' Digest; Sims v. State, 68 Ark. 188. Record shows agreement of counsel to put appellant on trial first. Norsworthy v. State, 149 Ark. 670; Morris v. State, 142 Ark. 297. ......
-
Clark v. State
... ... defendant Clark stood upon the docket as if he had been ... separately indicted, and his case might be tried when reached ... upon the call of the calendar like that of any other ... defendant. He has no concern with what was done with the ... other defendants after they had severed. Sims v ... State, 68 Ark. 188, 56 S.W. 1072, and Burns ... v. State, 155 Ark. 1, 243 S.W. 963 ... It is ... next insisted that the defendant should have a rehearing ... because he was not served with a true copy of the indictment ... as required by § 3052 of Crawford & ... ...
-
Harris v. State
...the order of trial of the other. This is the interpretation placed upon the statute quoted by this court in the case of Sims v. State, 68 Ark. 188, 56 S. W. 1062, and Burns v. State, 155 Ark 1, 243 S. W. 963. The court did not err in trying the case of appellant before placing Billy Corneli......
-
Harris v. State
... ... cases of persons jointly indicted for crime are severed, the ... cases stand on the docket independently of each other ... Neither has any concern about the order of trial of the ... other. This is the interpretation placed upon the statute ... quoted by this court in the case of Sims v ... State, 68 Ark. 188, 56 S.W. 1072, and Burns ... v. State, 155 Ark. 1, 243 S.W. 963. The court did ... not err in trying the case of appellant before placing Billy ... Cornelius on trial ... The ... third assignment of error by appellant for a reversal of the ... ...