Willis v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Scott Circuit Court. The parties being eo-conspirators, the statements complained of were admissible against all the defendants. 92 N. Car. 732, 737, 747; Und. Or. Ev. § 491; 12 Tex. App. 65; 45 Fed. 872; 32 Ark. 220; 2 McClain, Cr¡ Law, § 998. At least as against Lingo, the testimony was not prejudicial, as the court told the jury not to consider this evidence against him. 66 Ark. 16.
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
This is an appeal from a conviction of robbery and burglary. The appellants were jointly indicted and jointly tried. No objection was urged to the indictment or the pro^ cedure. There was evidence to justify a verdict of guilty for both offenses against each of appellants. The fourth ground of the motion for new trial is as follows: “Because the court erred in permitting the witness Mobly to testify to conversation had with Tom Fuqua in the absence of the defendants, or either of them.” Mobly testified as follows: “During the day of June 12, 1899, I saw Tom Fuqua, my brother-in-law, and Henry…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gill v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dyas v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- Benton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Zediker v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1926
- Rowe v. GoseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
- State v. BeebeWashington Supreme Court · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.