Sutton v. State

Decided November 11, 1899

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1899-11-11

There is no proof that appellant acquired possession of the mule by stealing it. There must be a felonious intent, to constitute larceny. Sand. &. H. Dig., § 1694; Bish. Cr. Law, 427. The unexplained possession of the mule, even if it had been proved to have been stolen, was not sufficient. 34 Ark. 443; 43 Ark. 39; 54 Ark. 621; 55 Ark. 244; 58 Ark. 576.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-11-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1971

5 state decisions

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 →

Bunn, C. J.

¶1There is no proof that the mule and trappings alleged to have been stolen were in fact stolen. The boy-in lawful possession of the property when the same is alleged to have been stolen was, for some reason unknown to us, not called as a witness in the case, and there is no other testimony as to how possession passed from him. This testimony is a necessary link in the chain, and should have been produced, if possible, and, if not possible, the proper explanation should have been given, and the next best evidence adduced.

¶2Reversed and remanded.