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