Holland v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge; The evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. Jim Allen’s testimony should have been' excluded. He was not shown to have been beyond the jurisdiction of the court. No proper foundation was laid. 84 Ark. 178; 73 Id. 406; 63 Id. 130; 68 Id. 441; 66 Id. 545. The testimony taken before the examining magistrate was not identified. 1. Jim Allen’s testimony was properly admitted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; Geo. R. Haynie, Judge; The evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. Jim Allen’s testimony should have been' excluded. He was not shown to have been beyond the jurisdiction of the court. No proper foundation was laid. 84 Ark. 178; 73 Id. 406; 63 Id. 130; 68 Id. 441; 66 Id. 545. The testimony taken before the examining magistrate was not identified. 1. Jim Allen’s testimony was properly admitted. He was shown to be beyond the jurisdiction of the court. 1 Gr. Ev. § 163; 2 Wigmore on Ev. § 1404. It was at least, within the court’s discretion to admit it…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellant, Walter Holland, was convicted of the crimes of burglary and of larceny, alleged to have been committed by breaking into the smokehouse of E. L. Butler in. Miller County, Arkansas, with intent to commit the crime of grand larceny and by stealing from .said house fifty pounds of meat and sixty pounds of lard.
The testimony of Butler and ‘his wife shows that the smoke-house in question was burglarized and that the quantity of meat and lard mentioned in the indictment was stolen and taken therefrom. The lard was in a three-gallon stone jar and in three buckets, and the stone jar taken…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953