Pratt v. State

51 Ark. 167
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 15, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 51 Ark. 167 (Pratt 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
Pratt v. State, 51 Ark. 167 (Ark. 1888).

Opinion

CoCKRlLL, C. J.

I. Assault: Included in change of rape. An assault with intent to commit rape is included in the charge of rape, and a conviction may be had of the former' offence under an indictment for the latter. Mansf. Dig., sec. 2288; Davis v. State, 45 Ark., 464; 1 Bish. Cr. Law, sec. 809.

2. Rape: Trial for: Conviction of assault. 2. It is conceded that the testimony would sustain a -diet for rape. That being true, there can be no question of its sufficiency to sustain the verdict for assau-lt with intent to commit the offence. If it be conceded that the testimony would logically demand a verdict of guilty of rape or nothing, it does not follow that a conviction of an attempt to rape should be avoided here. The jury had the power to return the verdict and the offence is less than the crime charged. The case is not distinguishable in that respect from Fagg’s case, 50 Ark,, 506; Green v. State, 38 Ark., 319; Allen v. State, 37 Ark., 435.

3. Same: Charge made under threats: Instruction. 3. The court refused to charge the jury as follows: the jury believe from the evidence that Nora Shaver, the woman upon whom the assault is charged to have been made, the charge against the defendant as mentioned in the indictment under duress or threats of and from her husband, you will acquit.” There was evidence tending to show that the husband threatened to abandon the woman unless she made complaint of her treatment to the magistrate. This could not have affected the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence, The most that could be claimed was, that under the influence of the threat, the wife may have made a false charge of rape, and so affected her credibility. Affirm.

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

Related

Bailey v. State
219 S.W.2d 424 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1949)
Bradshaw v. State
199 S.W.2d 747 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1947)
Paxton v. State
157 S.W. 396 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1913)
Ex Parte Harris
1912 OK CR 415 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1912)
Hamer v. State
150 S.W. 142 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Green v. State
121 S.W. 949 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1909)
Vickers v. United States
1908 OK CR 37 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1908)
Skaggs v. State
113 S.W. 346 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1908)
State v. Barkley
105 N.W. 506 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1905)
Bevers v. State
78 S.W. 748 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1904)
Bruce v. State
57 S.W. 1103 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1900)
People v. Muhlner
47 P. 128 (California Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Ark. 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-state-ark-1888.