Castevens v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Alexander M. Duffie, Judge; X. It was error to instruct the jury that in arriving at the value of the bicycle they were not to consider its value at the time of the trial, but must base their verdict upon its value at the time it was stolen — thereby assuming that there had been a larceny of a bicycle, and that the one in court was the one that had been stolen. 14 Ark. 286; lb. 530; 16 Ark. 568, 593; 18 Ark. 521; 20 Ark. 171; 24 Ark. 540;…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Alexander M. Duffie, Judge; X. It was error to instruct the jury that in arriving at the value of the bicycle they were not to consider its value at the time of the trial, but must base their verdict upon its value at the time it was stolen — thereby assuming that there had been a larceny of a bicycle, and that the one in court was the one that had been stolen. 14 Ark. 286; lb. 530; 16 Ark. 568, 593; 18 Ark. 521; 20 Ark. 171; 24 Ark. 540; 36 Ark. 117. 2. The court erred in admitting hearsay testimony. 1. The hearsay testimony complained of was improperly…
1Opinion of the CourtHire, C. J.
Appellant was tried and convicted on the charge of stealing a bicycle, the property of Cleveland Smith.
The State’s evidence tended to prove that a bicycle was' stolen from Smith, that it was found in possession of appellant, that it had been mutilated by appellant to change its appearance, and that it was over the value of ten dollars. A bicycle found in possession of appellant was brought into court, and witnesses identified it as Smith’s by various marks and peculiarities distinguishing it, one of which was a wire nail inserted in a broken rivet in the chain. The evidence of the appellant…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cranford v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Nobles v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934