Haley v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Haley v. State

138 S.W. 631, 99 Ark. 356, 1911 Ark. LEXIS 261

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJune 5, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 S.W. 631 (Haley 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

Haley v. State, 138 S.W. 631, 99 Ark. 356, 1911 Ark. LEXIS 261 (Ark. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood; J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of rape. The court permitted evidence of the dying declarations of the victim of the alleged assault to go to the jury. The Attorney General confesses that the trial court erred in its ruling. This presents the only question for our consideration. The confession of error must be sustained. “Dying declarations,” says the Supreme Court of Alabama, “according to the unbroken current of modern authorities, are admissible only in cases of homi-cide, when death, with the circumstances attendant on it, and the guilty agent in producing it, is the subject of inquiry.” Johnson v. State, 50 Ala. 459; Greenleaf on Ev. (15 ed.), § 156; Wigmore on Ev. (3 ed., Bowlby), § 1432. We have no statute making the dying declarations of a victim of rape admissible as evidence. In the absence of such statute, it was error to admit them in the case at bar. It is not shown that the declarations were of the res gestae. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

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

Wood; J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of rape. The court permitted evidence of the dying declarations of the victim of the alleged assault to go to the jury. The Attorney General confesses that the trial court erred in its ruling. This presents the only question for our consideration. The confession of error must be sustained. “Dying declarations,” says the Supreme Court of Alabama, “according to the unbroken current of modern authorities, are admissible only in cases of homi-cide, when death, with the circumstances attendant on it, and the guilty agent in producing it, is the subject of inquiry.” Johnson v. State, 50 Ala. 459; Greenleaf on Ev. (15 ed.), § 156; Wigmore on Ev. (3 ed., Bowlby), § 1432. We have no statute making the dying declarations of a victim of rape admissible as evidence. In the absence of such statute, it was error to admit them in the case at bar. It is not shown that the declarations were of the res gestae. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.W. 631, 99 Ark. 356, 1911 Ark. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haley-v-state-ark-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack