Waterman v. State

Decision Date06 October 1941
Docket Number4222
Citation154 S.W.2d 813,202 Ark. 934
PartiesWATERMAN v. STATE
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; Audrey Strait, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Bob Bailey and Bob Bailey, Jr., for appellant.

Jack Holt, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

OPINION

MCHANEY, J.

Appellant was charged by information with the crime of carnal abuse upon the person of one Katie Page, a girl not 14 years of age at the time of the alleged offense. Trial resulted in a verdict of guilty and a judgment of conviction was entered sentencing him to the penitentiary for one year.

For a reversal of this judgment appellant first contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment--that "there is no testimony whatever to sustain the conviction of this man, except the testimony of this little girl herself." And this quoted statement is true. She testified very positively that appellant did have sexual intercourse with her, stating the approximate time, the place and the circumstances of its occurrence. He, just as positively, denied the truth of her statements. This made a question of fact for the jury. She is not an accomplice within the meaning of § 4017 of Pope's Digest, and corroboration was not necessary. Bond v. State, 63 Ark. 504, 39 S.W. 554, 58 Am. St. Rep. 129. While we might not have voted for the verdict had we been on the jury, this is no reason why we should reverse the judgment. There was substantial evidence to support the verdict and the jury is the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.

Another assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court to permit the witness, Ollie Gibson, to testify that she saw the prosecutrix and one Joseph Page having sexual intercourse which was offered to impeach her testimony that she did not have such relation with said Joseph Page and also to attack her credibility as a witness. She was asked whether she had had such relation with him and denied it, although she admitted she had had such relations with other men. We think the court correctly excluded the offered testimony because it was a collateral matter which could not be proven for impeachment purposes. She having testified on cross-examination that she had no such relationship with Joseph Page could not be contradicted by even Joseph Page or Ollie Gibson. King v. State, 106 Ark. 160, 152 S.W. 990. Nor was it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Smith v. State, 4675
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1952
    ...judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony. Herron v. State, 202 Ark. 927, 154 S.W.2d 351; Waterman v. State, 202 Ark. 934, 154 S.W.2d 813. The evidence will be viewed by this court in the light most favorable to sustain a conviction. Cook v. State, 196 Ark. 113......
  • State v. Gardner
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1979
    ...initiated the inquiry, appellants are bound by the answer they received. As the Arkansas Supreme Court stated in Waterman v. State (1941), 202 Ark. 934, 935, 154 S.W.2d 813, 814, "(w)e think the court correctly excluded the offered testimony because it was a collateral matter which could no......
  • Willis v. State, 4715
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1952
    ...she was in fact corroborated. Hodges v. State, 210 Ark. 672, 197 S.W.2d 52; Tugg v. State, 206 Ark. 161, 174 S.W.2d 374; Waterman v. State, 202 Ark. 934, 154 S.W.2d 813. One indicted for rape can be convicted for carnal abuse. Warford & Clift v. State, 214 Ark. 423, 216 S.W.2d 781, 8 A.L.R.......
  • Nunley v. State, 4774
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1954
    ...credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Herron v. State, 202 Ark. 927, 154 S.W.2d 351; Waterman v. State, 202 Ark. 934, 154 S.W.2d 813. 'While the intent to kill cannot be implied as a matter of law, it may be inferred from facts and circumstances of the assa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT