Legal Opinion

James v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 2, 1916PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; J. S. Maples, Judge; 1. It was error to refuse a continuance. The application was based upon sufficient and legal affidavit. 99 Ark. 394; lb. 547; 110 Id. 409; 94 Id. 538; lb. 169; 21 Id. 460; 60 Id. 564. 2. The testimony of Dr. Christian and Sam Fink was incompetent and prejudicial. 62 Ark. 562; 57 Id. 402, 416; 65 Id. 316; 60 Id. 333; 94 Id. 183, 190; 111 Id: ■596; 2 WigmoreonEv. §§ 1521-3-5-6; 66 Fed. 522; 70 N. W. 1023. 3. The…

Read the full summary

Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; J. S. Maples, Judge; 1. It was error to refuse a continuance. The application was based upon sufficient and legal affidavit. 99 Ark. 394; lb. 547; 110 Id. 409; 94 Id. 538; lb. 169; 21 Id. 460; 60 Id. 564. 2. The testimony of Dr. Christian and Sam Fink was incompetent and prejudicial. 62 Ark. 562; 57 Id. 402, 416; 65 Id. 316; 60 Id. 333; 94 Id. 183, 190; 111 Id: ■596; 2 WigmoreonEv. §§ 1521-3-5-6; 66 Fed. 522; 70 N. W. 1023. 3. The remarks of counsel were improper and prejudicial. 1. The motion for continuance was properly overruled. The allegations were…

1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of carnal abuse. He did not testify in his own behalf, and the fact of his having had sexual intercourse with the girl named in the indictment was established by abundant testimony; but the principal defense was that the girl was not shown to be under sixteen years of age.

(1-2). Defendant moved for a postponement of the trial to a subsequent term of the court in order to enable him to procure the attendance of two witnesses by whom he expected to prove that the girl had admitted that she was more than sixteen years of age. The…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
  2. Freeman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  3. Brickey v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  4. Hunter v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  5. Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Co. v. AdcockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921

4 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