McDonald v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, .Greenwood District; George W. Docld, Special Judge; It was error to refuse to exclude all testimony relative to the action of the dogs. 108 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, .Greenwood District; George W. Docld, Special Judge; It was error to refuse to exclude all testimony relative to the action of the dogs. 108 Am. St. Rep. 1027. No effort was made to show that these dog’s were properly trained or handled or that they were even bloodhounds. 116 Ark. 232; 125 Id. 478, Appellant did not object to the introduction of the testimony with reference to the tfail of the bloodhounds and did not ask that such evidence be excluded. The objection can not be raised here for the first time. 9 Enc. of Ev., p. 46; 125 Ark. 478; 8 Ala. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, committed by breaking and entering a cotton-house, and has appealed.
The building entered belonged to one Jason Williams, who testified that he saw appellant in the cotton-house, and recognized him. Williams gave certain testimony in regard to appellant having been trailed by bloodhounds, and the admission of this testimony is assigned as error. Other exceptions were saved at the trial, but we think they do not require discussion. It is insisted on behalf of the State that the testimony in regard to the hounds was competent, and that, if not competent, it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Holub v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
3Cited by6 opinions
- Terrell v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1968
- Buck v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1943
- People v. NorwoodMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Rolen v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- Terrell v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.