Crumpton v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Crumpton v. State

52 Ark. 273

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided November 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Witnesses: Bias of. During the trial of the appellant, a witness introduced by him was asked if he had not made certain statements, which, if made, tended to show that he felt an interest in the defendant’s behalf. He denied that he had made the statements, and the State was permitted, against his objection, to prove that he had made them. The bias of one called to testify in a case is not a collateral matter. The testimony was competent. Butler v. State, 34 Ark., 480; Whar. Cr. Ev., sec. 483.

Instructions. It is urged that the court erred in instructing the jury as to the law of manslaughter, against the appellant’s objection. We cannot say there was no testimony to justify a conviction of manslaughter. Affirm.

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

Per Curiam.

Witnesses: Bias of. During the trial of the appellant, a witness introduced by him was asked if he had not made certain statements, which, if made, tended to show that he felt an interest in the defendant’s behalf. He denied that he had made the statements, and the State was permitted, against his objection, to prove that he had made them. The bias of one called to testify in a case is not a collateral matter. The testimony was competent. Butler v. State, 34 Ark., 480; Whar. Cr. Ev., sec. 483.

Instructions. It is urged that the court erred in instructing the jury as to the law of manslaughter, against the appellant’s objection. We cannot say there was no testimony to justify a conviction of manslaughter. Affirm.

Crumpton v. State, 52 Ark. 273 (Ark. 1889).

Pincite

52 Ark. 273 (Crumpton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related