Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 27 June 1896 |
| Citation | 36 S.W. 842 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Green county; Felix G. Taylor, Judge.
Leonard A. Wilson was convicted of assault and battery, and appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant was indicted for assault and battery, alleged to have been committed in Green county, was convicted, and appealed to this court. The evidence tends to show that the offense was committed on Lower White Oak Island, and that this island is in the St. Francis river, and that the river is the boundary between Craighead and Green counties. Instructions were given by the court and excepted to by the defendant, but the giving of them was not made a ground of the motion for new trial. According to the rulings of this court the exceptions were waived by failure to make them grounds of the motion for a new trial, and are not before us for consideration. The appellant asked the court to give to the jury the following instruction, to wit: "(2) The jury are instructed that, before they can find the defendant guilty, they must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime, if any, was committed in Green county, Arkansas." The court refused to give this instruction, to which the defendant excepted, filed a motion for a new trial, making the refusal to give this instruction a ground of his motion, which was overruled, whereupon he appealed to this court. There was conflict in the evidence, some of which tended to show the offense was committed in Green county, while some of the evidence tended to show that it was committed in Craighead county.
Leonard A. Wilson, pro se. E. B. Kinsworthy, Atty. Gen., for the State.
HUGHES, J. (after stating the facts).
Was there error in the court's refusal to instruct the jury that, unless the venue was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant could not be convicted? Upon this question there is diversity of judicial opinion, and it may be that a majority in number of the rulings are that the venue must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Bishop, in the first volume of his New Criminal Procedure (section 384, subd. 2), says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
...... that the venue need not be proved beyond a reasonable. doubt.'. . . And. cases decided by the courts of last resort in a number of the. states are cited as supporting the 'majority rule'. thus announced, including Wilson v. State, 62 Ark. 497, 36 S.W. 842, 54 Am. St. Rep. 303, in which it was said:. . . . 'The venue must be proved, but the question is whether it. must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or by a. preponderance of the evidence only. As Bishop says, it is. often, and perhaps ......
-
Culbertson v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company
......Railroad, 45 Mo.App. 535;. Railroad v. Clough, 134 Ill. 586; Railroad v. Adler, 129 Ill. 335; Railroad v. Sloan, 125. Ill. 72; State v. Railroad, 80 Me. 430; Callahan. v. Railroad, 52 Hun. 276; Whelan v. Railroad, . 38 F. 15. (7) Respondent's instruction number 3 was a. ... the collision, it was not to the Ninth street track. . . E. R. Wilson stood by the telegraph pole where the accident. happened; saw Culbertson drive on the Ninth street tracks. from behind the east bound Ninth street ......
-
State v. O'Shea
...be proved by the State, State v. Brooks, 136 N.J.L. 577, 57 A.2d 34 (E. & A.1947), is not an element of a crime. Wilson v. State, 62 Ark. 497, 36 S.W. 842 (Sup.Ct.1896); People v. West, 34 Cal.App.2d 55, 93 P.2d 153 (Dist.Ct.App.1939); People v. McIntosh, 242 Ill. 602, 90 N.E. 180 (Sup.Ct.1......
-
State v. Kincaid
...... either known to the members of the jury or which may probably. be familiar to them, the jury may safely presume that the. venue has been proved.' Underwood, Crim. Ev. (2d Ed.) pp. 59, 60, 61, § 36; 13 Ency. of Evidence, p. 932; 12 Cyc. pp. 494, 495; Wilson v. State, 62 Ark. 497, 36 S.W. 842,. 54 Am. St. Rep. 303; McCune v. State, 42 Fla. 192,. 27 So. 867, 89 Am. St. Rep. 225; People v. McGregar,. 88 Cal. 140, 26 P. 97; State v. Burns, 48 Mo. 438;. State v. Ruth, 14 Mo.App. 226; Commonwealth v. Ackland, 107 Mass. 211; ......