Hardin v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hardin v. State

339 S.W.2d 423, 232 Ark. 672, 1960 Ark. LEXIS 472

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 31, 1960

Docket4987

StatusPublished

This text of 339 S.W.2d 423 (Hardin 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

Hardin v. State, 339 S.W.2d 423, 232 Ark. 672, 1960 Ark. LEXIS 472 (Ark. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Jim Johnson, Associate Justice.

Appellant J. A. Hardin, a white man, was convicted of the crime of concubinage which is a felony. See Ark. Stats. §§ 41-806, 41-807. It was established that J. A. Hardin took a negro woman to a tourist court and had sexual intercourse with her. There was no effort on the part of the State to prove that Hardin and the Negro woman ever lived together in any way except in the act of sexual intercourse at the tourist court.

Hardin contended in the lower court and contends here that sexual intercourse standing alone is not sufficient evidence of the crime of concubinage. He raises other questions in this Court but we'need not discuss them.

This ease of Hardin was consolidated for oral argument in this Court with the case of Poland and Stephens v. State, 231 Ark. 669, 339 S. W. 2d 421, and the opinion delivered this day in the Poland and Stephens appeal clearly disposes of the present case. Therefore, in light of the opinion in the said Poland and Stephens, supra, the judgment of the Circuit Court in this case is reversed and the cause dismissed.

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

Jim Johnson, Associate Justice.

Appellant J. A. Hardin, a white man, was convicted of the crime of concubinage which is a felony. See Ark. Stats. §§ 41-806, 41-807. It was established that J. A. Hardin took a negro woman to a tourist court and had sexual intercourse with her. There was no effort on the part of the State to prove that Hardin and the Negro woman ever lived together in any way except in the act of sexual intercourse at the tourist court.

Hardin contended in the lower court and contends here that sexual intercourse standing alone is not sufficient evidence of the crime of concubinage. He raises other questions in this Court but we'need not discuss them.

This ease of Hardin was consolidated for oral argument in this Court with the case of Poland and Stephens v. State, 231 Ark. 669, 339 S. W. 2d 421, and the opinion delivered this day in the Poland and Stephens appeal clearly disposes of the present case. Therefore, in light of the opinion in the said Poland and Stephens, supra, the judgment of the Circuit Court in this case is reversed and the cause dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.W.2d 423, 232 Ark. 672, 1960 Ark. LEXIS 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardin-v-state-ark-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack