Legal Opinion

Cascio v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 3, 1948No. 4487PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobins, J.

Appellant was charged in an information filed by the Prosecuting Attorney with violating the statute (§ 3063, Pope’s Digest) which forbids possessing or having in one’s custody tools designed for burglary. A trial jury found him guilty and fixed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for three years. From judgment on the verdict this appeal is prosecuted.

These assignments of error are argued here:

I. That the motion to quash the information should have been sustained.

II. That the court should, on account of insufficiency of evidence against appellant, have directed a verdict of ‘ ‘…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Penton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  2. Wilson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  3. Brockelhurst v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  4. Walker v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
  5. Smith and Parker v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Moore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  2. Dean v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1954
  3. State v. VejvodaNebraska Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Allen Benton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1956
  5. Randall v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API