Bodenhamer v. State

28 S.W. 507, 60 Ark. 10, 1894 Ark. LEXIS 2
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided December 8, 1894·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Bunn, C. J.

1. Indictment for profanity held good. (after stating the facts.) The indictment is for a purely statutory offense, as enacted in section 1880, Mansfield’s Digest, and a majority of the court are of the opinion that the offense is sufficiently charged therein, the same being charged in the language of the statute. State v. Moser, 33 Ark. 140; State v. Witt, 39 Ark. 216; State v. Snyder, 41 Ark. 226.

2. Profane language need not be publicly used. There was no error in the refusal of the court to give the second instruction asked by defendant, since the statute does not require that the profane language shall be used publicly in order to constitute the crime charged.

Finding no error, the judgment of the Baxter circuit court is affirmed.

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

Bodenhamer v. State, 28 S.W. 507, 60 Ark. 10, 1894 Ark. LEXIS 2 (Ark. 1894).

28 S.W. 507 (Bodenhamer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Duncan v. United States
48 F.2d 128 (Ninth Circuit, 1931)
Kerr v. United States
104 S.W. 809 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1907)
Caldwell v. State
83 S.W. 929 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1904)
State v. Hooker
81 S.W. 231 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1904)