White v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 1907 |
| Citation | 102 S.W. 715 |
| Parties | WHITE v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Arkansas County; Eugene Lankford, Judge.
G. B. White was convicted of uttering a forged instrument, and appeals. Affirmed.
W. N. Carpenter and H. A. Parker, for appellant. Wm. F. Kirby, Atty. Gen., and Dan. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
G. B. White was indicted by a grand jury of the county of Arkansas at the April, 1906, term of the Arkansas circuit court, for forgery and for uttering a forged instrument. He petitioned for a change of venue on the ground that the minds of the inhabitants of Arkansas county were so prejudiced against him that he could not obtain a fair and impartial trial therein. The motion was supported by the affidavits of four persons. To ascertain whether they be credible the court caused them to be examined under oath touching their knowledge of the subject-matter of their affidavits. This examination showed that the affidavits of three of the affiants were based on expressions of opinion by people living in one or two localities in the county, and that their information was not sufficient to form an opinion as to the state of the minds of the inhabitants of the county as to the defendant, and that they swore recklessly in making the affidavits, and were not credible. If it be conceded that the other affiant was credible, his affidavit was not sufficient to support the petition of the defendant, as the affidavits of two credible persons were required by the statute.
The statute provides that the allegations of a petition for change of venue of a criminal cause must be supported by the affidavits of two credible persons, who are qualified electors, actual residents of the county, and not related to the defendants in any way. Kirby's Dig. §§ 2317, 2318. But it does not provide how it shall be shown that the affiants are credible persons. This is left to the court to determine. This court has repeatedly held that this may be done by examination of such persons, in court, touching their knowledge as to what they have sworn. Jackson v. State, 54 Ark. 243, 15 S. W. 607; Price v. State, 71 Ark. 180, 183, 71 S. W. 948; Maxey v. State, 76 Ark. 276, 88 S. W. 1009; Duckworth v. State (Ark.) 97 S. W. 280.
The court, in this case, found that the petition was not supported by the affidavits of two credible persons, and denied the change of venue; and we find committed no reversible error in so doing.
The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniels v. State
...on the credibility of the affiants, but it cannot go into the question of whether the facts sworn were true or false. White v. State, 83 Ark. 36, 102 S.W. 715; Strong v. State, 85 Ark. 536, 109 S.W. 14 Ann. Cas. 229; Latourette v. State, 91 Ark. 65, 120 S.W. 411; Whitehead v. State, 121 Ark......