York v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

York v. State

53 S.W.2d 226, 186 Ark. 260, 1932 Ark. LEXIS 304

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 10, 1932

DocketNo. CR 3820

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 S.W.2d 226 (York 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

York v. State, 53 S.W.2d 226, 186 Ark. 260, 1932 Ark. LEXIS 304 (Ark. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

The bill of exceptions in the instant case is identical with the one held insufficient in the case of Ward v. State, 135 Ark. 259, 204 S.W. 971. In this *Page 261 case, as in that the bill of exceptions was signed by the prosecuting attorney and counsel for appellant, but had not been submitted to nor approved by the trial judge. The appellant in each case had been convicted of a felony. It was there held that it is necessary that a bill of exceptions in a case where defendant has been convicted of a felony be signed by the trial judge, and that the bill of exceptions did not become a part of the record until it was so signed.

The errors complained of in the instant case, like those in the Ward case, supra, are such as must be brought into the record by a proper bill of exceptions, and, as no error appears in the absence of a bill of exceptions, the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

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

The bill of exceptions in the instant case is identical with the one held insufficient in the case of Ward v. State, 135 Ark. 259, 204 S.W. 971. In this *Page 261 case, as in that the bill of exceptions was signed by the prosecuting attorney and counsel for appellant, but had not been submitted to nor approved by the trial judge. The appellant in each case had been convicted of a felony. It was there held that it is necessary that a bill of exceptions in a case where defendant has been convicted of a felony be signed by the trial judge, and that the bill of exceptions did not become a part of the record until it was so signed.

The errors complained of in the instant case, like those in the Ward case, supra, are such as must be brought into the record by a proper bill of exceptions, and, as no error appears in the absence of a bill of exceptions, the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 S.W.2d 226, 186 Ark. 260, 1932 Ark. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/york-v-state-ark-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack