Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 Ark. 86

Glenn v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 6, 1902

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1902-12-06

Geo. M. Ohapltne, Judge. The indictment contains all the elements of murder in the second degree; and that was the crime intended to be charged. 34 Ark. 480; 36 Ark. 242.

Relies on Williams v. State · Caldwell v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1902-12-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1965

10 state decisions

301902191019201930194019501960decided

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.

¶1Jim Glenn, the appellant, was indicted for murder in the first degree, and was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to one year in the penitentiary. He moved for new trial, which was overruled. He excepted, and appealed to this court.

¶2After S. A. Castleberry was accepted as a juror, the prosecuting attorney asked and was permitted to re-examine him. The court pronounced him competent, and the prosecuting attorney was then, over the appellant’s objection, permitted to challenge him peremptorily. The defendant had not exhausted his challenges. There was no error in this. Caldwell v. State, 69 Ark. 322. *

¶3In instructing the jury, the courf; gave ah instruction upon involuntary manslaughter. The appellant killed Tom Glaser by cutting him twice with a knife. It was wrong to instruct on involuntary manslaughter, as there was no.evidence of involuntary manslaughter in the case. Acting upon this instruction, the jury found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and gave him six months in the penitentiary, while in our opinion the proof strongly tends to show he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter. But notwithstanding the judgment must be affirmed. The practice of giving instructions upon degrees of crime when there is no evidence' to warrant such instructions is calculated to mislead the jury and work prejudice. It should be avoided.

¶4 See Williams v. State, 63 Ark. 527. (Rep.)

/71/ark/86 · .json · Public domain