Pinkerton v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; 1. The defendant was forced to give testimony against bimself. His testimony before the grand jury could not be used against him. Const., Art. 2, § 8; lié Ark. 391; Kirby’s Digest, § 3087; 84 Id. 88; 66 Id. 33,53. 2. The fourth instruction was improperly refused. It is the law. 1. The testimony of the foreman of the grand jury was admissible by way of impeachment and as affecting the credibility of the witness.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; 1. The defendant was forced to give testimony against bimself. His testimony before the grand jury could not be used against him. Const., Art. 2, § 8; lié Ark. 391; Kirby’s Digest, § 3087; 84 Id. 88; 66 Id. 33,53. 2. The fourth instruction was improperly refused. It is the law. 1. The testimony of the foreman of the grand jury was admissible by way of impeachment and as affecting the credibility of the witness. When a defendant takes the stand, he is subject to the same liabilities on cross-examination as other witnesses. 46 Ark.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Howard county on the charge of being engaged in manufacturing whiskey in that county, and on the trial before a jury he was convicted and sentenced to the State penitentiary. It is undisputed that whiskey was being manufactured at a small distillery in the woods near appellant’s premises, and that appellant was aware of its presence there, and, in fact, visited the place on more than one occasion and drank whiskey there.' The only issue in the case is whether or not he participated in the operation of the' still.
The State introduced a witness who…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bobo v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Pinkerton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Spights v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922