Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 11 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | 235 |
| Citation | 206 S.W. 435,136 Ark. 290 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; J. S. Lake, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
W. S Coblentz, for appellant.
The motion for new trial was filed in time and the court abused its discretion in overruling it. Kirby's Dig §§ 2421-2, 6218-6220; 56 Ark. 133; 102 Id 373; 35 Id. 56; 48 Id. 305; 84 Id. 409; 69 Id. 545; 111 Id. 399; 86 Id. 481. A new trial should have been granted.
John D. Arbuckle, Attorney General, and T. W. Campbell, Assistant, for appellee.
1. The motion was properly overruled. It was filed after the term adjourned. Kirby's Digest, § 2421; 113 Ark. 237; 58 Id. 229. Kirby's Digest, § 6220, only applies to civil cases.
2. The record was filed here too late. Kirby's Digest, § 2614. The appeal was not prayed during the term nor the record filed within sixty days. The newly discovered evidence was not sufficiently material.
Separate indictments were returned against Tom Thomas, charging him with wife abandonment and with child abandonment. By consent the two cases were tried together, and from a judgment of conviction in each case the defendant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.
After the term of court at which the defendant was tried had been adjourned, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and this is the only ground relied upon for a reversal of the judgment. Section 2421 of Kirby's Digest, relating to new trials in criminal cases, provides that the application for a new trial must be made at the same term at which the verdict was rendered, unless the judgment is postponed to another term, in which case it may be made at any time before judgment. Section 6220 of Kirby's Digest under the head of New Trials, in the chapter on Pleading and Practice, provides under what circumstances motions for new trials may be filed after the term in which the verdict or decision was rendered. It is claimed by counsel for the defendant that these two sections, when construed together, gave the defendant the right to file a motion for a new trial after the term had ended. The court has decided adversely to that contention. The question first came up in the case of Howard v. State, 58 Ark. 229, 24 S.W. 8, and the court held that sections 3909 and 5155 of Mansfield's Digest, which correspond with sections 4431 and 6220 of Kirby's Digest, provide for a new trial in civil cases after the term has expired on the ground of newly discovered evidence, but that no such provision is made with reference to criminal cases and that none was allowed at common law.
Again in the Town of Corning v. Thompson, 113 Ark. 237, 168 S.W. 128, the court in construing section 2421 of Kirby's Digest said that this statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry v. Norris, PB-C-83-275.
...74 S.W.2d 966, 967-68 (1934) (same); but see Delaney v. State, 212 Ark. 622, 626-27, 207 S.W.2d 37, 38-39 (1948); Thomas v. State, 136 Ark. 290, 291-92, 206 S.W. 435 (1918). Thus, by declining to view the thirty-day filing period contemplated by § 16-91-105(b)(1) and Rule 36.22 as being jur......
-
State v. Martineau
... ... review of the judgments of conviction, for there is no ... provision in the laws of this State for the granting of a new ... trial after the lapse of the term on the ground of newly ... discovered evidence. Howard v. State, 58 ... Ark. 229, 24 S.W. 8; Thomas v. State, 136 ... Ark. 290, 206 S.W. 435; Satterwhite v ... State, ante p. 147 ... It ... ...
-
State v. Martineau
...trial after the lapse of the term on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Howard v. State, 58 Ark. 229, 24 S. W. 8; Thomas v. State, 136 Ark. 290, 206 S. W. 435; Satterwhite v. State, 231 S. W. It follows that the chancery court is without jurisdiction to proceed, and the writ of prohib......
-
Satterwhite v. State
...within sixty days. C. & M. Dig., § 3393; 97 Ark. 116; 96 Id. 145. The appeal comes too late and should be dismissed or judgment affirmed. 136 Ark. 290; 96 145; 97 Id. 116. OPINION MCCULLOCH, C. J. Appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Clark County for the crime of rape and was tried a......