Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 05 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | 4149 |
| Citation | 136 S.W.2d 673,199 Ark. 900 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sevier Circuit Court; Minor W. Millwee, Judge; affirmed.
Affirmed.
Wesley Howard and George R. Steel for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General and Jno. P. Streepey Asst. Atty. General, for appellee.
Appellant, Carl Smith, was convicted in the Sevier circuit court of the crime of burglary and of grand larceny and his punishment on the former offense fixed at two years in the penitentiary and on the latter at one year, the sentences to run concurrently.
It is alleged in the information that he broke into a building in Sevier county, Arkansas, being used and owned by the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, a corporation, with the unlawful and felonious intent of committing grand larceny and that he stole therefrom postal savings certificates of the value of $ 2,500 and other personal property belonging to Joe Wilson and $ 15.82 in money which belonged to the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Western Union Telegraph Company and the American Railway Express Company.
The testimony upon which convictions were had, stated in its most favorable light to the state, is to the following effect:
State's witness, Joe Wilson, testified that he was the agent of the railway company, the railway express company, and the Western Union Telegraph Company; that the burglary occurred between 1:10 and 7:05 a. m. on June 30, 1939; that entrance was effected through the negro waiting room, and the safe broken open. The following articles were stolen: One Stone Mountain coin and other personal property consisting of post office savings certificates valuing $ 2,500, a soldier's adjustment certificate of the value of $ 750, a Masonic ring of the value of $ 18, Sears & Roebuck refund check in the sum of $ 1.50, $ 5.96 in cash belonging to the Express Company, $ 8.90 belonging to Western Union, and $ 4.09 belonging to the Railway Company.
Wilson further testified he saw appellant the morning of the burglary at the station around 7:15 and that he remained around there 45 or 50 minutes; that appellant walked down the platform in front of the depot where some men were working and talked there; that he didn't make any inquiry about any packages of freight or express, and that it was not his custom to hang around the depot; that he did not believe he had ever seen the appellant there at that time of day before that when appellant was talking to the men he kept looking at the depot and especially was that true after the sheriff arrived; that after appellant left, the witness followed the Woods boy, who testified as an accomplice, and saw him go to appellant's residence; that appellant was at Knod's store and left there; in 15 minutes, the Woods boy left Knod's store and went up to appellant's house; that he went there between 8 and 9 o'clock the morning of the burglary.
Emmett Woods, an accomplice, testified that he assisted appellant in the burglary in question; that he went down to the depot fifteen or twenty minutes after the train ran north. (The depot agent, Wilson, had testified that he served this train and left the depot at 1:10 a. m.) Woods further testified that appellant had a square tool box about 18 inches long and that he, Woods, stayed outside watching while appellant went inside the depot; that appellant stayed in the depot room about 30 or 40 minutes. Appellant told Woods, after coming out of the depot, that he got some money and other things and would divide with him; that he went to appellant's house the morning after the burglary after daylight and found him in the kitchen about 8:30 washing a pair of trousers; that appellant told him the sheriff was in town and that he did not know any reason for the sheriff being there and was washing his clothes so if anything happened he could skip out.
L. S. Delahunter of the state police heard appellant state that he was home on the morning after the burglary when Emmett Woods came to his house and found him washing trousers.
Boyd Bond on behalf of the state, testified that on Tuesday night before the burglary, which occurred on Friday morning, appellant asked him what he was doing and when he said "nothing" he asked him if he would like to make some easy money and that they could probably do it by getting into the depot; that the witness told appellant that he did not want to get mixed up in anything like that; that appellant said he wanted some money to go see a girl; that appellant told him that he could get into the depot all right; that he would take one of those outfits a doctor used to examine a person's heart and listen to the turn of the dials and make the safe open; that appellant was an automobile mechanic.
On this state of the record, together with some other testimony of probative value, which, however, we do not deem it necessary to set out, appellant earnestly insists, first, that the evidence is not legally sufficient to sustain his conviction. He urges that the state failed to offer any substantial testimony that would corroborate the testimony of the accomplice, Woods, connecting appellant with the commission of the crimes. We cannot agree.
In a recent case this court has laid down the rule relative to the sufficiency of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tate v. State
...standing alone, to convict. The sufficiency of the corroborating evidence is also a question for the jury." See, also, Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900, 136 S.W.2d 673; Shaw v. State, 194 Ark. 272, 108 S.W.2d 497; Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530, 258 S.W. 995; Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648, 10......
-
Blalock v. Lockhart
...a felony conviction under Arkansas accomplice liability law which was not explained to him by counsel. He relies on Smith v. State, 199 Ark. 900, 136 S.W.2d 673, 674 (1940), for the belief that an accomplice (Blalock) may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of another accomplic......
-
Tate v. State
... ... ... Judgment affirmed ... Ralph ... Morrow, for appellant ... Jack ... Holt, Attorney General and Jno. P. Streepey, ... Assistant Attorney General, for appellee ... HOLT, ... J. GRIFFIN SMITH, C. J., concurring ... ... HOLT, ... On an ... information charging grand larceny, appellant, William Tate, ... was tried and convicted, [204 Ark. 471] and his punishment ... assessed at one year in the state penitentiary. For reversal ... ...
-
Casteel v. State
... ... to connect the defendant with the offense, its sufficiency is ... a question for the jury, together with that of the ... accomplice. Middleton v. State, 162 Ark ... 530, 258 S.W. 995; Mullen v. State, 193 ... Ark. 648, 102 S.W.2d 82; Smith v. State, ... 199 Ark. 900, 136 S.W.2d 673; McDougal v ... State, 202 Ark. 936, 154 S.W.2d 810." See, ... also, Powell v. State, 177 Ark. 938, 9 ... S.W.2d 583 ... With ... this rule in mind, and viewing the testimony in the light ... most favorable to the state, as we ... ...