Clay v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Clay v. State

88 S.W. 306, 75 Ark. 513, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 628

DecidedMay 27, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.W. 306 (Clay 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

Clay v. State, 88 S.W. 306, 75 Ark. 513, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 628 (Ark. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, J.

At the March term, 1905, of the Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, the grand jury returned an indictment against Kent Peggee, Cal Clay and Green Robinson for assault with intent to kill and murder. At the trial á severance was taken, and appellant was tried on a plea of not guilty, found guilty, and his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary. His motion for a new trial having been overruled, he appealed to this court.

The Attorney General confesses error. The proof does not show that appellant took part in the assault. What he did was done after the assault was over, and is not shown to have had any connection therewith. The appellant was indicted as principal offender. But he was not present when the offense 'was committed. The confession of error is sustained.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

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

Wood, J.

At the March term, 1905, of the Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, the grand jury returned an indictment against Kent Peggee, Cal Clay and Green Robinson for assault with intent to kill and murder. At the trial á severance was taken, and appellant was tried on a plea of not guilty, found guilty, and his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary. His motion for a new trial having been overruled, he appealed to this court.

The Attorney General confesses error. The proof does not show that appellant took part in the assault. What he did was done after the assault was over, and is not shown to have had any connection therewith. The appellant was indicted as principal offender. But he was not present when the offense 'was committed. The confession of error is sustained.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.W. 306, 75 Ark. 513, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-state-ark-1905.