Snow v. State
| Decision Date | 29 September 1919 |
| Docket Number | 104 |
| Citation | 215 S.W. 3,140 Ark. 7 |
| Parties | SNOW v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; affirmed.
Affirmed.
Jesse Reynolds and G. O. Patterson, for appellant.
1. The motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained because the names of the witnesses were not endorsed upon it. 33 Ark. 174; Kirby's Digest, § 2225.
2. It was error to refuse defendant's motion for a continuance. Due diligence was shown.
3. The prosecutrix is contradicted in so many ways that the verdict should not stand and the verdict was not the verdict of the jury but a quotient verdict and in any event the punishment should be reduced to the minimum. 34 Ark. 232; 66 Id. 264; 91 Id. 502.
John D Arbuckle, Attorney General, and Robert C. Knox, Assistant for appellee.
1. It was not error to overrule the motion to quash the indictment. 33 Ark. 174.
2. The motion for continuance was properly overruled. No injustice is shown nor abuse of discretion by the court. 40 Ark. 144; 26 Id. 323; 79 Id. 594; 82 Id 203; 100 Id. 132; 103 Id. 354; 119 Id. 450; 110 Id. 402; Kirby's Digest, § 7613. The burden was on defendant to show due diligence. 94 Ark. 169; 71 Id. 62. The witnesses also were non-residents. 110 Ark. 402; 90 Id. 384; 103 Id. 509.
3. The motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence was properly overruled. 2 Ark. 133; 74 Id. 377; 76 Id. 88.
4. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and there is no evidence to show a quotient verdict. 66 Ark. 232; 91 Id. 502; Kirby's & Castle's Digest, § 2595. See also 130 Ark. 457.
An indictment was returned by the grand jury of Johnson County accusing the defendant Hobart Snow of the crime of rape, committed on the person of Pearl Martin, a young woman about the age of seventeen years. On the trial of the case defendant was convicted of assault with intent to rape and the punishment was fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of fifteen years.
The first ground urged for reversal is that the court erred in refusing to quash the indictment because the names of all the witnesses who appeared before the grand jury were not endorsed on the indictment. The record does not show that defendant asked for a ruling of the court on the motion to quash. Moreover, this court decided in Johnson v. State, 33 Ark. 174, that an indictment should not be quashed on account of the failure to endorse thereon the names of witnesses, but that on application of the accused the court should require the prosecuting attorney to endorse the names of the witnesses on the indictment or furnish a list of the witnesses to the accused. No such application was made to the court in this case.
The next ground for reversal urged is that the court should have granted defendant's motion for continuance on account of absent witnesses. It is stated in the motion that the two witnesses would testify that they were present when the act of sexual intercourse took place between defendant and Pearl Martin and that she consented to the intercourse. This testimony would have been cumulative of that of other witnesses who were present at the trial. Besides, the motion for continuance failed to show diligence in an effort to procure the attendance of the absent witnesses. The testimony shows that there were six boys present, defendant being one of them, and that three of them had intercourse with the girl. She testified, in substance, that the intercourse with her was had forcibly and against her will, but the boys testified that she consented. There is a conflict in the testimony, but the verdict of the jury determined that issue against the defendant. It can not be successfully maintained that the verdict is entirely without substantial evidence to support it. If the sexual intercourse between defendant and the girl was, as the jury found, forcibly and against her will, the verdict should have been one finding defendant guilty of the crime of rape, for it seems to be undisputed that the act of sexual intercourse between the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calicoat v. State
... ... Cas. 1079; Powell v ... State, 5 Tex.App. 234; Campbell v. State, 65 ... Tex. Cr. R. 418, 144 [131 Miss. 173] S.W. 966; Gatlin v ... State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 339, 217 S.W. 698; Price v ... State, 82 Ark. 25, 100 S.W. 74; Sexton v ... State, 91 Ark. 589, 121 S.W. 1075; Snow v ... State, 140 Ark. 7, 215 S.W. 3; State v. Burns, ... 263 Mo. 594, 173 S.W. 1070; State v. Mittner, 247 ... Mo. 577, 153 S.W. 1020; State v. Berkley, 109 Mo ... 665, 19 S.W. 192; State v. Haugh, 156 Iowa 639, 137 ... N.W. 917; State v. Dimmitt, 184 Iowa 870, 169 N.W ... 137; ... ...
-
Cole v. State
... ... appellant in conducting men to them ... Section ... 3010, C. & M. Digest, provides that when an indictment is ... found the names of all witnesses who are examined must be ... written at the foot of or on the indictment, and this court, ... in the case of Snow v. State, 140 Ark. 7, ... 215 S.W. 3, held that the trial court should, on the ... application of the accused, require the prosecuting attorney ... to endorse the names of the witnesses on the indictment or ... furnish a list of the witnesses to the accused. The accused ... here made this ... ...
-
McGuffin v. State
... ... him, but refused to grant a continuance to the defendant ... until he could investigate the witnesses for the State. No ... exceptions were saved to the ruling of the court, and besides ... this, there was no error in the court's ruling in this ... respect. Snow v. State, 140 Ark. 7, 215 ... S.W. 3; Cole v. State, ante p. 9 ... It is ... next insisted that the court erred in refusing to withdraw ... from the consideration of the jury the testimony of Andrew ... Halfacre as to what George King had said to him in the ... absence of ... ...
-
Connelly v. State
...of paper and one slip then drawn out, which by agreement should become the verdict.' Other cases to the same effect are: Snow v. State, 140 Ark. 7, 215 S.W. 3; Steed v. Wright, 179 Ark. 812, 18 S.W.2d 340; St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Steele, 185 Ark. 196, 40 S.W.2d 628; Patton v. Stat......