Watkins v. State

37 Ark. 370
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 37 Ark. 370 (Watkins 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
Watkins v. State, 37 Ark. 370 (Ark. 1881).

Opinion

Harrison, J.

A bill of exceptions could only be sighed 1)3' the Special Judge before whom the case was tried and •the exceptions taken.

Judge Pindall, the regular Judge, could not have had that direct and certain knowledge of the proceedings and rulings of the court as might enable him to make the matters excepted to a part of the record by a bill of exceptions..

The paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, and signed by him as such, therefore, constitutes no part of the record, and is a nullity.

A count for grand larceny may be joined, with one for burglary, in the same indictment. Gantt’s Digest, sec. 1351; Toliver v. The State, 35 Ark., 395. And there may be a general verdict of guilty, on the whole indictmen. Howard v. The State, 34 Ark, 433; 1 Bish. Cr. Proceed., sec. 1015a; 3 Whar. Crm. Law, sec. 3047.

But “where the counts are for distinct offenses,” says Mr. Bishop, “though a general verdict of guilty will operate as a conviction of all, still it has been held,, and it seems in reason just, that the defendant is entitled, on request, to have separate findings returned upon them, oi\ at least, to have the jury in some way pass upon each by itself.” 1 Bish. Crm. Proceed., sec. 1015a.

As the least- punishment for burglary is three years imprisonment in the penitentiary, and, for grand larceny, one year, it is evident the defendant was not found guilty of both, but only of one or the other. That the verdict did not show which, was not an error for which the judgment might have been arrested, or should be reversed. The defendant could have required it to be certain and distinct.. 1 Bish. Crm. Proceed., sec. 1013.

An indictment need not be signed by the prosecuting attorney. It is sufficient if found by the grand jury and indorsed by their foreman. Anderson v. The State, 5 Ark., 444; 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 324; 1 Arch. Crim. Prac., 97; 1 Bish. Crim. Proceed., sec. 702.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Bryant v. State
185 S.W.2d 280 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1945)
Clayton v. State
89 S.W.2d 732 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1935)
Robinson v. State
7 S.W.2d 5 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Sorrell v. State
186 S.W. 336 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Carnehan v. Parker
144 S.W. 907 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
O'Neal v. State
136 S.W. 936 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Crook v. State
27 S.W. 229 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Ark. 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-state-ark-1881.