Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 22 May 1922
• Docket Number: 12
• Citation: 241 S.W. 37,153 Ark. 645
• Parties: SMITH v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

241 S.W. 37

153 Ark. 645

SMITH v. STATE

No. 12

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 22, 1922

Appeal from Polk Circuit Court, James S. Steel, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Minor Pipkin, for appellant.

J S. Utley, Attorney General, and Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH J.

Appellant was convicted of perjury, and has appealed. For the reversal of the judgment he insists that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; and that the alleged false testimony was not material.

The indictment alleges that the grand jury was engaged in the examination of a charge against Jess Nichols and Harvey Jane for the larceny of certain meat, and that pending such examination witness testified "that he did not, on the day prior to the examining trial of the case against the said Nichols and Jane, attempt to compromise or settle said case, which was then and there pending in justice court, with Mrs. Bud Bickle, and did not ask her if she would settle the case if she should be paid $ 75, or any other amount." The indictment alleges the materiality and the falsity of the testimony.

The foreman of the grand jury testified, and in doing so made use of such expressions as "If I remember right", and "It is my belief". These statements were made in repeating the testimony of appellant before the grand jury. The deputy prosecuting attorney also testified in the case, and in doing so he used the expression, "My recollection is", and "I am of the impression."

It is insisted that the use of these and other similar expressions of the witnesses shows that the witnesses were not sufficiently certain and definite to meet the requirements of the law. But this was a question of fact for the jury, and the jury's verdict is conclusive of the question.

The chief insistence is that the alleged false testimony was immaterial. It is said that the testimony could not have been offered at the trial of Nichols and Jane upon the charge of larceny, in the absence of a showing that these persons had authorized appellant to make the proposition to Mrs. Bickle.

It is to be remembered, however, that the false testimony was given before the grand jury, a body having general inquisitorial powers, and the allegation of the indictment is that appellant was interrogated about an incident which had occurred the day before the examining trial of Nichols and Jane before the justice of the peace. The denial by appell...