Sutton v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from White Circuit Court. There is no proof that appellant acquired possession of the mule by stealing it. There must be a felonious intent, to constitute larceny. Sand. &. H. Dig., § 1694; Bish. Cr.
Read the full summary
Appeal from White Circuit Court. There is no proof that appellant acquired possession of the mule by stealing it. There must be a felonious intent, to constitute larceny. Sand. &. H. Dig., § 1694; Bish. Cr. Law, 427. The unexplained possession of the mule, even if it had been proved to have been stolen, was not sufficient. 34 Ark. 443; 43 Ark. 39; 54 Ark. 621; 55 Ark. 244; 58 Ark. 576. The court erred in excluding evidence tending to prove an alibi on the part of defendant. 34 Ark. 720; 33 Ark. 316; 43 Ark. 289; 43 Ark. 99; 12 Ark. 782. The evidence is legally sufficient. 58 Ark. 576; 34 Ark,…
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.
There is no proof that the mule and trappings alleged to have been stolen were in fact stolen. The boy-in lawful possession of the property when the same is alleged to have been stolen was, for some reason unknown to us, not called as a witness in the case, and there is no other testimony as to how possession passed from him. This testimony is a necessary link in the chain, and should have been produced, if possible, and, if not possible, the proper explanation should have been given, and the next best evidence adduced.
Reversed and remanded.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Douglass v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Butler v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
- Whitney v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Little v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- King v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971