Nickens v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. E. S. McDaniel, Judge. Appellant was found guilty of an assault with intent to kill John Hughes. Among other grounds for anew trial he alleges that he was surprised by the testimony of a witness to the effect that, on a certain occasion, he had admitted having shot at Hughes.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. E. S. McDaniel, Judge. Appellant was found guilty of an assault with intent to kill John Hughes. Among other grounds for anew trial he alleges that he was surprised by the testimony of a witness to the effect that, on a certain occasion, he had admitted having shot at Hughes. He subjoined the áffidavits of certain persons present at the time mentioned who denied that appellant made the alleged admission ; and he alleged that the presence of these witnesses at the trial could not have been procured after the testimony was introduced, because they resided…
1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.
The first duty of a party surprised at the trial by the testimony offered by his adversary is to make application for a postponement of the trial, in order that he may repair the damage done him by the unexpected testimony. If the delay is granted and his witnesses secured, he has no cause to complain. If the court x-efuses to grant him the opportunity to get his witnesses to refute the unexpected testimony, he is then in position to press the court’s refusal as a ground for a new trial. If he takes his chance of a verdict in his favor in spite of the surprise, without an effort to repair the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. KilpatrickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Mutual Life Insurance v. ParrishSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- Sellers v. HarveySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Overton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.