Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Ark. 242

Frazier v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 21, 1892

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1892-05-21

Frazier appeals from a conviction of rape. The evidence of the prosecuting witness was to the effect that the appellant gained possession of her person without physical force, but by means of threats of choking her if she resisted or made outcry.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-05-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 1925

2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

601892190019101920decided

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 →

Hemingway, J.

¶11. As to physical examination i n rape cases.

¶2There is no proof of the venue of the offense, and the judgment cannot be sustained. As the case must be retried, we have thought best to consider the charge to the jury. We think the court properly refused to give the fourth and seventh instructions asked by defendant;* we have been directed to no principal or precedent in support of them, and they embody principles that seem necessarily unsound.

¶3% Instruction as to credibility of "witnesses considered.

¶4There was no error in the instructions given for the State, unless it be found in the following: “If the jury find that any witness has sworn falsely to any material fact, they may, if they see proper, disregard the whole testimony of such witness.” False swearing as to a particular fact warrants a jury in discrediting the entire testimony of a witness only when it is wilful, and the instruction is incomplete in omitting this. Moreover, the instruction might be construed as warranting a jury in disregarding testimony which it believed to be true, if it emanated from a witness who had sworn falsely to some other fact. Thus construed, it does not reflect the law, for, although a witness is found to have wilfully testified falsely to a material fact, the jury will not be warranted in disregarding other parts of his testimony which appear to- be true.

¶5As there is absolutely no proof of venue, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

¶6 The instructions referred to are copied in the Reporter’s first head-note.

/56/ark/242 · .json · Public domain