State v. Spear and Boyce
| Decision Date | 24 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 344 |
| Citation | 185 S.W. 788,123 Ark. 449 |
| Parties | STATE v. SPEAR AND BOYCE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; appeal dismissed.
State's appeal dismissed.
Wallace Davis, Attorney General, Hamilton Moses, Assistant; J. N Rachels, Prosecuting Attorney and W. H. Yarnell, Jr., Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
1. It was error to instruct a verdict for defendant upon the testimony. 94 Ark. 169; 99 Id. 121; 17 Id 1.
The two defendants, Will Spears and Arch Boyce, were indicted for the crime of grand larceny, alleged to have been committed by stealing one hog, the property of Wylie Goad, and on the trial of the case before a jury the court gave a peremptory instruction in favor of the defendants. Judgment of acquittal was entered on the verdict and the State has appealed.
The only question presented is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to warrant a submission of the issue to the jury. The statute provides that the State may appeal from a judgment acquitting the defendants in a felony case, but that "a judgment in favor of the defendant, which operates as a bar to a future prosecution of the offense, shall not be reversed by the Supreme Court." Kirby's Digest, sections 2602-2604. The appeal is, according to the terms of the statute, taken by the Attorney General filing in the office of the clerk of this court a transcript of the proceedings, if he is satisfied that error has been committed to the prejudice of the State, "and upon which it is important, to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law, that the Supreme Court should decide." Kirby's Digest, section 2603.
It is clear that appeals in felony cases are not allowed by the State except in cases where it is important to have the court correct errors which prevent the "uniform administration of the criminal law." Appeals are not allowed merely to demonstrate the fact that the trial court has erred. The question of the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a given case constitutes a question of law for the decision of the court, but it can not become a precedent for application in another case because of the varying state of facts in different cases, and therefore the decision of that question even though it be one of law, is not important in the "uniform administration of the criminal law." The State has no right to ask for the decision of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dawson
...595, 868 S.W.2d 488 (1994). Appeals are not allowed merely to demonstrate the fact that the trial court erred. State v. Spear and Boyce, 123 Ark. 449, 185 S.W. 788 (1916). Where the resolution of the issue on appeal turns on the facts unique to the case, the appeal is not one requiring inte......
-
State v. Browning
...Sections 4253, 4254 of Pope's Digest and former decisions of this court, State v. Smith, 94 Ark. 368, 126 S.W. 1057; State v. Spear and Boyce, 123 Ark. 449, 185 S.W. 788, and State v. Massey, 194 Ark. 439, 107 S.W.2d 527, an appeal has been prosecuted to this court for the sole purpose of o......
-
State v. Hagan-Sherwin
...merely to demonstrate the fact that the trial court erred. State v. Stephenson, 330 Ark. 594, 955 S.W.2d 518 (1997); State v. Spears, 123 Ark. 449, 185 S.W. 788 (1916). Thus, where the resolution of the issue on appeal turns on the facts unique to the case, the appeal is not one requiring i......
-
State v. Browning
... ... Pope's Digest and former decisions of this court, ... State v. Smith, 94 Ark. 368, 126 S.W. 1057; ... State v. Spear and Boyce, 123 Ark. 449, 185 ... S.W. 788, and State v. Massey, 194 Ark ... 439, 107 S.W.2d 527, an appeal has been prosecuted to this ... ...