Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

148 Ark. 573

Townsend v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 16, 1921

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1921-05-16

The cases in 75 Ark. 540, and 63 Icl. 310 are conclusive of this case. 1. Appellant did not object to the action of the court in giving instructions and can not do so on appeal for the first time. 78 Ark. 490. Exceptions to instructions must be saved during the trial and brought into the record by bill of exceptions, and can not be saved merely by assignment in a motion for new trial. 88 Ark. 505. 2. The crime of burglary and grand larceny may be charged in one indictment.

Relies on Vaughan v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

affirmed · Decided 1921-05-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1967

7 state decisions

4019211930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Humphreys, J.

¶1Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted in the Chicot Circuit Court for the crimes of burglary and grand larceny committed by breaking and entering a box car in the night time and taking from the possession of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company meat of the value of $150, and his punishment was assessed for the former at five years in the penitentiary, and for the latter at two years. From the judgments of conviction an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court. i • "

¶2The convictions were procured on the testimony of St. Claire Crane and Sam Lynch, accomplices in the alleged crimes, Fred Morris and C. W. Tillman, agent and clerk, respectively, of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Tom Baker and Harry Donaldson.

¶3The evidence disclosed that, on the night of December 5, 1920, four cases of wrapped bacon, weighing about 500 pounds, manufactured by the Independence Packing Company of Kansas City, Missouri, of the value of twenty cents per pound, were stolen from a sealed car at Eudora, Arkansas, same being in the possession of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. The accomplices testified, in substance, that they, in connection with Clarence Snell and appellant, broke the seal of a box car at Eudora, Chicot County, Arkansas, on the night .of December 5,1920, and stole meat of the value of about $100.

¶4Tom Baker testified that, in the month of December, appellant tried-to sell him some meat; and Harry Donaldson that, in the same month, appellant tried to swap him some smoked meat for meal.

¶5The evidence disclosed that appellant was not a dealer in'meats.

¶6Appellant contends that the evidence of the accomplices in the crimes is not sufficiently corroborated to warrant the conviction, under Crawford & Moses’ Digest, section 3181, which is as follows: “A conviction can not be had in any case of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows that the offense was committed, and the circumstances thereof. Provided, in misdemeanor eases a conviction may be had upon the testimony of an accomplice. ’ ’

¶7This court said, in the case of Vaughan v. State, 58 Ark. 353, in construing the statute in relation to felonies, that the corroborating evidence “must relate to material facts which go to the identity of defendant in connection with the crime.” The corroborating evidence in the instant case is to the effect that near about the time the offenses were committed appellant was attempting to sell or trade smoked meat. Appellant was not engaged in the meat business. It was too early in the season for farmers, or others who had killed hogs in the fall, to have smoked meat for sale. It is a matter of common knowledge that wrapped bacon, pnt np by manufacturing houses, has been smoked, and, at that season of the year, is the .only kind of smoked meat on the market. We think the corroborating evidence was of a substantial character, independent of the statement of the accomplices, tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crimes. The evidence in the whole case was therefore sufficient to sustain the conviction.

¶8No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

/148/ark/573 · .json · Public domain