Alexander v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; George R. Haynie, Judge; 1. The verdict is clearly against the uncontradicted evidence. 2. The court erred in its instructions to the jury. 1. The proof is amply sufficient to sustain a verdict' of conviction. 92 Ark. 120, 586; 95 Id. 172, 321; 100 Id, 330. The jury were the sole judges of the evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; George R. Haynie, Judge; 1. The verdict is clearly against the uncontradicted evidence. 2. The court erred in its instructions to the jury. 1. The proof is amply sufficient to sustain a verdict' of conviction. 92 Ark. 120, 586; 95 Id. 172, 321; 100 Id, 330. The jury were the sole judges of the evidence. They did not believe the evidence of Williams and appellant. 101 Ark. 51; 104 Id. 162. 2. The motion for continuance was properly overruled. 58 Ark. 513. 3. There is no error in the instructions. Where the usual and proper instruction on reasonable doubt is…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted in the Miller Circuit Court of the crimes of burglary and larceny. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. The requisite steps were taken and this cause is here on appeal.(1) The first assignment of error urged for reversal is that the verdict is clearly against the uncontradicted evidence. The substance of the evidence tending to establish the guilt of appellant is as follows: The latter part of September or first part of October, as it was getting dark one evening, a man fitting the description of appellant was seen to enter the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rhea v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Blankenship v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Wiley v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Baker v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Birones v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mays v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924