Cunningham v. State

471 S.W.2d 777, 251 Ark. 277
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided October 25, 1971·No. 5650·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Conley Byrd, Justice.

The only point raised in this appeaJ from the trial court’s denial of appellant Rudolph Cunningham’s post conviction relief is the assertion that he was denied a' fair trial because the deputy prosecuting attorney threatened one of the State’s witnesses with perjury if she did not tell the truth. The witness, a relative of petitioner, testified that though the threat was made, she only told the truth and nothing but the truth.

We find no merit in the contention.

Affirmed.

Fogleman, J., not participating.

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

Cunningham v. State, 471 S.W.2d 777, 251 Ark. 277 (Ark. 1971).

471 S.W.2d 777 (Cunningham v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Worth v. Civil Service Commission
746 S.W.2d 364 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1988)
Worth v. CIV. SERVICE COM'N OF EL DORADO
746 S.W.2d 364 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1988)