Bennett v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Bennett v. State

503 S.W.2d 908, 255 Ark. 887

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 21, 1974

DocketCR 73-142

StatusPublished

This text of 503 S.W.2d 908 (Bennett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. State, 503 S.W.2d 908, 255 Ark. 887 (Ark. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In appealing from a conviction and 21-year sentence for murder in the second degree, the appellant contends only that the State should not have been allowed to introduce a photograph of the decedent’s face, taken by the doctor who performed an autopsy to establish the cause of death. The photograph was clearly relevant. The doctor could not positively identify the decedent by name; so the photograph was used to enable another witness to identify the dead body as that of the decedent. It is now argued that the defense did not question the decedent’s identity, but even so the State had the burden of proving that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. We may add that there is nothing about the photograph that can fairly be said to be of a gruesome or inflammatory nature.

Affirmed.

Harris, C.J., not participating.

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

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In appealing from a conviction and 21-year sentence for murder in the second degree, the appellant contends only that the State should not have been allowed to introduce a photograph of the decedent’s face, taken by the doctor who performed an autopsy to establish the cause of death. The photograph was clearly relevant. The doctor could not positively identify the decedent by name; so the photograph was used to enable another witness to identify the dead body as that of the decedent. It is now argued that the defense did not question the decedent’s identity, but even so the State had the burden of proving that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. We may add that there is nothing about the photograph that can fairly be said to be of a gruesome or inflammatory nature.

Affirmed.

Harris, C.J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 S.W.2d 908, 255 Ark. 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-state-ark-1974.