Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

186 Ark. 260

53 S.W.2d 226

York v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 10, 1932

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1932-10-10

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1948

1 state decisions

Relies on Ward v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1932-10-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The 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 case, as in that the hill 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.

¶2The 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.

/186/ark/260 · .json · Public domain