Perryman v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Perryman v. State

414 S.W.2d 91, 242 Ark. 461, 1967 Ark. LEXIS 1266

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 1, 1967

Docket5234

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 414 S.W.2d 91 (Perryman 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

Perryman v. State, 414 S.W.2d 91, 242 Ark. 461, 1967 Ark. LEXIS 1266 (Ark. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of having indecently exposed himself to a girl under the age of sixteen. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-1127 and -1129 (Repl. 1964). The jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment for six months. 'The testimony of the prosecuting witness and of another high school student who was present when the incident occurred was amply sufficient to support the verdict.

The court did not err in allowing the fifteen-year-old prosecutrix to testify. In criminal cases the trial judge is given wide discretion in determining the competency of a minor as a witness. Harris v. State, 238 Ark. 780, 384 S. W. 2d 477 (1964). There was no abuse of discretion here. Quite the opposite, the record suggests no basis for questioning the competency of this witness. Nor did the court err in refusing to permit defense counsel to delay his opening statement to the jury until the State had rested its case. That exact point was decided in McDaniels v. State, 187 Ark. 1163 (mem.), 63 S. W. 2d 335 (1933).

Affirmed.

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

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of having indecently exposed himself to a girl under the age of sixteen. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-1127 and -1129 (Repl. 1964). The jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment for six months. 'The testimony of the prosecuting witness and of another high school student who was present when the incident occurred was amply sufficient to support the verdict.

The court did not err in allowing the fifteen-year-old prosecutrix to testify. In criminal cases the trial judge is given wide discretion in determining the competency of a minor as a witness. Harris v. State, 238 Ark. 780, 384 S. W. 2d 477 (1964). There was no abuse of discretion here. Quite the opposite, the record suggests no basis for questioning the competency of this witness. Nor did the court err in refusing to permit defense counsel to delay his opening statement to the jury until the State had rested its case. That exact point was decided in McDaniels v. State, 187 Ark. 1163 (mem.), 63 S. W. 2d 335 (1933).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 S.W.2d 91, 242 Ark. 461, 1967 Ark. LEXIS 1266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perryman-v-state-ark-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack