Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 Ark. 309

Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1877

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1877-11-15

<p>Oriminal Procedure: Suspension of trial, etc.</p> <p>During the trial of a felony the court, against the defendant’s objection, suspended the trial and allowed the jury to separate for three days that the State might procure the attendance of a witness. Held, that it was not an abuse of the discretion of the court; under the provisions of the Criminal Code the court is authorized to permit the jury to separate either before or after the cause is submitted to them.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1974

8 state decisions

2018771880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Harrison, J.:

¶1The appellant, Henry Johnson, was convicted in the Arkansas. Circuit Court, of the crime of bigamy, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for three years.

¶2After the State had examined several witnesses, the court,, against the objection of the defendant, suspended the trial, and allowed the jury to separate, from Tuesday until Friday, that the-State might procure the attendance of a witness.

¶3The suspension of the proceedings in a trial, is within the-sound discretion of the court, and we are not prepared to say, there was any abuse of its discretion in this case.

¶4And though the rule formerly was different, the jury may now, by a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, be permitted by the court to separate, either before or after the case is submitted to them. Code of Crim. Proced., secs. 243, 246;: Gantt’s Digest secs. 1938, 1941.

¶5As it is possible for great prejudice to result from such separations, the discretion of the court, in allowing .it, should be, especially in trials for felony, exercised with the utmost caution r and for any apparent abuse of it, this court would not hesitate reverse the judgment.

¶6The judgment is affirmed.

/32/ark/309 · .json · Public domain