State v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 29 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 4742,4742 |
| Citation | 222 Ark. 376,259 S.W.2d 677 |
| Parties | STATE v. ALEXANDER et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Tom Gentry, Atty. Gen., Thorp Thomas and James L. Sloan, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Rieves & Smith and Henry S. Wilson, West Memphis, for appellees.
The defendants are three residents of Tennessee and duly licensed by that state as commercial fishermen. They were charged in the Municipal Court of West Memphis, Arkansas, with the crimes of operating commercial fishing tackle while non-residents of Arkansas and using trammel and gill nets at night in violation of Arkansas statutes. Upon a trial, the defendants were found guilty and fined $50 on each charge and their tackle ordered confiscated. They appealed to the Crittenden Circuit Court.
At the trial in Circuit Court, the trial judge granted the State's motion for a directed verdict of guilty at the conclusion of the evidence in chief on behalf of the defendants, and the same penalty was assessed as in municipal court. The defendants filed a motion for new trial on the ground that the courts' action in directing the verdicts of guilty against them was contrary to the law and the evidence. The order of the Circuit Court sustaining the motion and granting the defendants a new trial recites: 'That the court committed error in holding that it is presumed that the offense charged in the information was committed within the jurisdiction of the court, because the place of commission of the alleged crime is an essential element thereof, and the burden is upon the State of Arkansas to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged offense occurred within the actual boundaries of the State of Arkansas, the court further finding that the statute giving the State of Arkansas concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Tennessee to the east bank of the Mississippi river was not intended to apply to an act which is criminal in the State of Arkansas but lawful in the State of Tennessee and was particularly not intended to embrace the acts set forth in the information herein.'
In prosecuting this appeal from the order granting a new trial, the State has stipulated that judgment absolute shall be rendered against it if said order be affirmed.
For the purposes of this appeal it seems to be conceded by the State that, at the time of their arrest, the defendants were fishing commercially at night with trammel and gill nets on the Tennessee side of the waters of the Mississippi River where that stream forms the boundary line between the two states. At any rate, a careful consideration of the testimony demonstrates that at least a disputed question of fact for the jury's determination was presented as to whether the defendants were fishing in the territorial boundaries of Tennessee at the time of their arrest. It is also admitted that commercial fishing with trammel and gill nets at night is permitted under Tennessee law and that defendants were duly licensed as commercial fishermen. Ark.Stats. § 47-410, subd. E provides that only residents of Arkansas may be licensed to fish commercially and under subsection G the use of trammel or gill nets at night is prohibited.
The State's contention that the trial court correctly instructed verdicts of guilty against the defendants is based upon a compact between Tennessee and Arkansas entered into pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 7 of the United States Congress approved February 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1163. This resolution authorized the two states to enter into a compact, 'to fix the boundary line between said States, where the Mississippi River now, or formerly, formed the said boundary line, and to cede respectively each to the other such tracts or parcels of the territory of each State as may have become separated from the main body thereof by changes in the course or channel of the Mississippi River, and also to adjudge and settle the jurisdiction to be exercised by said States, respectively, over offenses arising out of violation of the laws of said States upon the waters of the Mississippi River.' Pursuant to the resolution, the legislatures of Tennessee and Arkanas passed acts which provide that the two states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction over the waters of the Mississippi River where it forms the boundary line between the two states. See Ark.Stats. §§ 43-1401, 43-1402; Williams Tennessee Code, § 93.
The issue presented is stated in the following question propounded by the attorney general: 'May the State of Arkansas punish an act which has been denominated a crime by this State when that act is committed within territory over which Arkansas has jurisdiction by compact authorized by the Congress of the United States concurrently with the State of Tennessee, despite the fact that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alexander
...under its own laws for any offense committed in the disputed territory or on the waters. * * * " See also State v. Alexander, et al., 222 Ark. 376, 259 S.W.2d 677, 679 (1953); State v. George, 60 Minn. 503, 506, 63 N.W. 100, 101 (1895) (" * * * One of the reasons for establishing this concu......
-
State v. Holden
...both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Cf. Nielsen v. State of Oregon, 212 U.S. 315, 29 S.Ct. 383, 53 L.Ed. 528 (1909); State v. Alexander, 222 Ark. 376, 259 S.W.2d 677 (1953). The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction has a long history and obvious purposes. See Rorer, Interstate Law 336 (1879); ......
-
Whitney v. Guterres, CV-17-693
...Arkansas has the authority to enforce its laws with regard toconduct that occurs within its territorial borders. See State v. Alexander, 222 Ark. 376, 259 S.W.2d 677 (1953); Goodman v. State, 153 Ark. 560, 240 S.W. 735 (1922). The circuit court denied Whitney's in forma pauperis petition an......
- Covington v. Shackleford