Home/Supreme Court of Arkansas/Austin v. State

Austin v. State

36 S.W.2d 400, 183 Ark. 481, 1931 Ark. LEXIS 413
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided March 16, 1931·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There appears in the record what purports to be an agreed bill of exceptions which contains a notation signed 'by the prosecuting attorney as follows: “0. K. as an abstract of the testimony in the above case so far as I am able to remember.” This cannot be considered upon appeal for two reasons: In the first place, it was not filed with the clerk within the time allowed by the court for filing a bill of exceptions. In the second place, it is still necessary that the trial judge sign the bill of exceptions in a felony case before it can be admitted as a part of the record upon appeal. Ward v. State, 135 Ark. 259. The trial judge did not sign what purports to be the bill of exceptions, and our review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record. Both the indictment, which is for grand larceny, and the judgment and sentence, are in proper form. Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Austin v. State, 36 S.W.2d 400, 183 Ark. 481, 1931 Ark. LEXIS 413 (Ark. 1931).

36 S.W.2d 400 (Austin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

West v. Smith
278 S.W.2d 126 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1955)
Cain v. State
173 S.W.2d 1005 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1943)
French v. State
168 S.W.2d 829 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1943)
Westerdale v. State
168 S.W.2d 615 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1943)
Chandler v. State
167 S.W.2d 142 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1943)
Boatright v. State
113 S.W.2d 107 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1938)
McGonagill v. State
85 S.W.2d 1014 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1935)