Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

68 Ark. 577

Allen v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 2, 1901

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1901-02-02

Joel D. Conway, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. At the June term, 1900, of the Miller circuit court, on the 7th day thereof, defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree, and on the 18th day thereof was tried. On said 18th day of June'the jury were unable to agree upon a verdict, and on the next day they returned a verdict against the defendant, assessing his punishment at seven years in penitentiary.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-02-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1941

5 state decisions

2019011910192019301940decided

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 →

Hughes, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts.) Though there are several assignments of error in this case, yet, as the case must be reversed for the error in admitting certain testimony which a majority of the judges think was prejudicial, we do not think it necessary to notice any other.

¶2Over the objection of the defendant, Robert Hawkins, a justice of the peace, was permitted to testify that some three or four months before the trial, John Gayton (the deceased) requested him to go to the defendant, and request him to let his wife alone, and that he told Ossejr, Allen, from what he had heard he had better let John Gayton and his wife alone. If he did not, there would be trouble between them. On cross-examination, witness stated that when he told Ossey Allen this, Ossey Allen replied that he would. This testimony was inadmissible. The defendant saved proper exceptions to this testimony, and embodied his exceptions in his motion for anew trial, which being overruled he excepted and appealed to this court. In view of the fact that there was testimony which tended to prove an alibi for the defendant, this evidence might have prejudiced the jury.

¶3For the error of its admission,, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

/68/ark/577 · .json · Public domain