Stuart v. State, 4731
Citation | 257 S.W.2d 372,222 Ark. 102 |
Decision Date | 04 May 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 4731,4731 |
Parties | STUART v. STATE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Shaver, Tackett & Jones, Texarkana, for appellant.
Tom Gentry, Atty. Gen., and Thorp S. Thomas and James L. Sloan, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
A jury found appellant, Dr. C. E. Stuart, guilty on an information charging him with the 'crime of threatening an officer by drawing a gun committed as follows, to-wit: The said defendant on the 3rd day of September, 1952, in Howard County, Arkansas, did unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously resist the execution of criminal process by threatening or by actually drawing a pistol and/or a gun upon Harold Bell, an officer and trooper with the Arkansas State Police Dept., etc.,' and fixed his punishment at a term of one year in the State Penitentiary. From the judgment is this appeal.
About midnight on September 3, 1952, Mr. Bell, a State Police Officer, accompanied by Jake Hooker, City Marshal of Mineral Springs, while cruising the highway near Mineral Springs, observed appellant and his son, Carroll, parked in a car. He passed this car, then turned about, shined his spotlight on it, and came toward the parked automobile, at which time Dr. Stuart 'took off down the road.' Bell followed and shortly thereafter fired his pistol into the air and then at the tires of the fleeing car. The chase continued for about fourteen miles, ending at the Doctor's home in Nashville. Bell testified that after he had stopped at the Stuart home, he went up to the car and said, 'you are driving under the influence,' and told Stuart to get out. As he opened the door of the Stuart car, Stuart hit him with his fist; then seized his steering wheel and held on, making it necessary for Bell to pull Stuart out of the car. As Bell was trying to force Stuart to the police car, Hooker cried out a warning that the boy in the car had a gun. Bell let Stuart go, ran around and got Hooker's gun and put it on the boy, telling him to 'drop that gun.' Instead of complying, the boy backed up the porch steps. Meanwhile, Stuart had run into the house and had returned with a shotgun, which he pointed at Bell. Simultaneously, he cursed and threatened Bell, saying if he did not get out he was going to fill him full of buckshot. Bell then got in his car and drove away. He had no warrant or process for appellant's arrest. Dr. Stuart was not arrested until the following day, at about 11 o'clock A.M.
For reversal, among twenty-seven assignments of alleged errors in the trial of the case, is appellant's assignment that the court erred in permitting the State to introduce testimony over his objections and exceptions to the effect that Dr. Stuart was 'drinking' and 'might have been resisting arrest on the day following the night occasioning the charge for threatening an officer,' and also testimony concerning his actions at the Hale Drug Store on this same day 'following the night occasioning the charge' against him.
The record shows that on September 4th, around 11 o'clock A. M., the day following the night of September 3, 1952, on which Dr. Stuart is alleged to have been drinking and resisted arrest by Officer Bell, that Sheriff Chesshir and Travis Ward, a State patrolman, then with warrant of arrest in their possession, arrested Dr. Stuart at the Hale Drug Store in Nashville. In the testimony of Officer Ward, the record reflects:
* * *
' * * *
'
'Mr. Tackett: I will ask to make objection to this testimony, and save exception to the ruling of the Court.
'The Court: Overruled. * * *
The Prosecuting Attorney testified that at the time of appellant's arrest at the Hale Drug Store 'in my opinion, he was under the influence of liquor.'
We have concluded that the trial court erred in admitting the above testimony over appellant's objections. We think the actions and behavior of Dr. Stuart on the day following his alleged offense could have no bearing on his guilt of the crime for which he was being tried. Such evidence could only result in tending to prejudice the minds of the jury against him.
In the case of Cross v. State, 200 Ark. 1165, 143 S.W.2d 530, evidence was offered over objections of defendant to show that the accused was in an intoxicated condition several hours after the commission of the crime charged. The trial court held this testimony incompetent and so charged the jury. We there held (Headnote 6): 'Criminal Law.--Appellant's objection to the testimony of the arresting officers to the effect that she was in an intoxicated condition at the time of the arrest could not bring a reversal of the judgment where the court admonished the jury 'not to consider the question and answer,' since the court did all it could well do to eliminate all prejudice from the minds of the jury.'
Conversely, since here the trial court, over appellant's objections and exceptions, refused to admonish the jury not to consider the above testimony, reversible error resulted.
Since we...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. State
...Nothing may be left to intendment and all doubts must be resolved in favor of the defendant in construing such statutes. Stuart v. State, 222 Ark. 102, 257 S.W.2d 372. See also, Ladwig v. Arlington Hotel Company, 225 Ark. 972, 286 S.W.2d 853. No case may be brought within the purview of a c......
-
Barnes v. State
...of any probative value on the question of guilt or innocence in this testimony. This evidence was totally irrelevant. See Stuart v. State, 222 Ark. 102, 257 S.W.2d 372. There was no error in denial of a mistrial because of questions propounded to Barnes on cross-examination. The prosecuting......
-
State v. Colvin
...S.W.2d 218 (1942); [and] that all doubts in construing a criminal statute must be resolved in favor of the defendant, Stuart v. State, 222 Ark. 102, 257 S.W.2d 372 (1953); Knapp v. State, 283 Ark. 346, 676 S.W.2d 729 (1984).” Additionally, “we are bound by the historic rule that penal statu......
-
Meyers v. State
...of any official duty in case of felony or any other case, civil or criminal, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. See Stuart v. State, 222 Ark. 102, 257 S.W.2d 372. A city policeman is a ministerial officer within the meaning of this section. Drifoos v. City of Jonesboro, 107 Ark. 99, 154 S......