Hummel v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Ed. F. McFaddiN, Justice.
Appellant was convicted of the crime of sodomy for having unnatural sexual relations with the prosecuting witness, a married female seventeen years' of age. The questions herein discussed are among the twenty-seven assignments of error contained in the motion for new trial.
I. Was the Prosecuting Witness an Accomplice¶ Appellant asked an instruction to the effect that the prosecuting witness was an accomplice and that appellant could not be convicted on her uncorroborated testimony. This instruction was refused, but the court gave the following instructions numbered 5…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Suber v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- Strand v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1927
- Perryman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- State v. BisagnoSupreme Court of Kansas · 1926
- State v. DowellIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Alford v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
- Raymond Henry Atwell v. State of ArkansasCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
- Clay v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
- Kagebein v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
- McGehee v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2002
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.