Baldwin v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from-Sevier ¡Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; 1. A continuance should have been granted; defendants were unduly hastened to trial. 94 Ark. 545. ’2. The evidence is legally insufficient to support the verdict. 3. An alibi was proven. 4. The court erroneously excluded testimony material to the defense. Kirby’s Digest, § 3135. 5. The remarks of the State’s counsel were prejudicial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from-Sevier ¡Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; 1. A continuance should have been granted; defendants were unduly hastened to trial. 94 Ark. 545. ’2. The evidence is legally insufficient to support the verdict. 3. An alibi was proven. 4. The court erroneously excluded testimony material to the defense. Kirby’s Digest, § 3135. 5. The remarks of the State’s counsel were prejudicial. Argues the facts and contends that the evidence is ample to sustain a conviction, and that there are no errors of law. 1. The continuance was properly refused. 60 Ark. 161-7; 108 Ark. 594; 118 Ark.…
1Opinion of the Court
McCulloch, O. J.
The defendants, Hood and Jim Baldwin, were convicted of robbing the Bank of Gillham, a hanking institution in the town of Gillham, in Sevier County, Arkansas. The defendants are brothers, and reside in the State of Oklahoma, about seventy or seventy-five miles from Gillham, and about ten miles from the town of Bismark, Oklahoma. The bank robbery occurred about 10:30 o’clock in the morning of Wednesday, March 3, 1915, the president of the bank, Dr. B. E. Hendricks, and Noah Rodgers, the bookkeeper, and a Mr. Sinclair ■being in the bank at the time. It was a very dark, rainy…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. MessinoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- West v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
- State v. ClarksonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1954
- State v. MartinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1926
- Dillard v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.