Bush v. State
37 Ark. 215
Opinion
The instruction objected to was properly-given. It stated the law as declared in Lyerly v. The State, 36 Ark., 39; and Sullivan v. The State, 32 Ark., 187.
That asked by the defendant was properly refused. It was misleading — tending to restrict the consideration of the-jury to the isolated facts to which it referred, and exclude-from their consideration the other evidence in the case. Reese v. Beck, 24 Ala., 651; Chappell v. Allen, 38 Mo., 213; Gruber v. Nichols, 36 Ill., 92.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bush v. State, 37 Ark. 215 (Ark. 1881).
37 Ark. 215 (Bush v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Poland v. State
339 S.W.2d 421 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1960)
McClure v. McClure
172 S.W.2d 243 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1943)
Wadsworth v. Brigham
266 P. 875 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)
Smith v. State
260 S.W. 392 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1924)
Hovis v. State
257 S.W. 363 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1924)
Leonard v. State
153 S.W. 590 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1913)
Umbenhour v. Umbenhour
21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 317 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1909)
Commonwealth v. Lucas
32 N.E. 1033 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)