Renfroe v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; 1. The motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; 1. The motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained. Kirby’s Digest, § 2203; 67 Ark. 256. 2. The court’s refusal to grant a continuance was, under the circumstances in this case such an abuse of discretion as to warrant a reversal. 71 Ark. 180. 3. The testimony of the prosecuting witness as to an assault committed in the Greenwood District was improperly admitted. 73 Ark. 262; 67 Ark. 112. 4. The baptismal record and the card of'St. John’s Episcopal Chitrch were inadmissible as evidence of the age of…
1Opinion of the CourtBattue, J.
“At the March, 1907, term of the Sebastian Circuit ’Court, Fort Smith District, the grand jury returned an indictment against Tom Renfroe, accusing him of the crime of carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 16 years, committed as follows, towít: The said defendant, in the county and district aforesaid, on the 17th day of February, 1907, unlawfully and feloniously did carnally know and abuse Bertha Huber, a female person under the age of 16 years, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.”
The defendant moved the court to “quash the indictment against him in this case for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry. Co. v. CavenesseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Hust v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Crenshaw v. A. F. Shapleigh Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
3Cited by14 opinions
- Russell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977
- State v. HallNevada Supreme Court · 1932
- Thomas v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
- Waterman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.