{ "id": 1312227, "name": "Adams v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Adams v. State", "decision_date": "1911-10-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "203", "last_page": "207", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "100 Ark. 203" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "77 Ark. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "66 Ark. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1909774 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/66/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ark. 324", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "45 Ark. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1892045 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/45/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ark. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1897126 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/40/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ark. 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1898653 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/39/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ark. 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1884423 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/28/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320424 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ark. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1896182 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/41/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ark. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900543 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/38/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ark. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722941 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/33/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ark. 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Ark. 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Ark. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1848261 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/2/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ark. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726239 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/17/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Ark. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1909804 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/66/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ark. 512", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1152596 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/67/0512-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ark. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1511775 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/91/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ark. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1329181 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/58/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ark. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1499102 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/77/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Ark. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ark. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ark. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1511775 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/91/0492-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 463, "char_count": 7901, "ocr_confidence": 0.531, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.142692048151915e-07, "percentile": 0.5793970999853659 }, "sha256": "b545483ac4b0014690ffbf866490e9604d733ac2e00658dab209d5797035e87f", "simhash": "1:869f330aa32cc88a", "word_count": 1455 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:08.282918+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Adams v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Kirby, J.\nLynn Adams was indicted for grand larceny at the September, 1908, term of Jefferson Circuit Court, and, after several continuances of the cause, was convicted at the March term, 1911, and appealed from the judgment.\nIt is contended that the venue of the crime was not proved, that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict, and that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial for newly-discovered evidence. The testimony tended to show that John Forrest lived on the Haywood place in Jefferson County in 1908, and had a cow and heifer yearling over there. The yearling was marked. He heard one Sunday morning in the fall of that year that the heifer had been killed on Friday before, and went and examined part of the carcass, the hide, head, neck and shoulders,, and identified it as his property. A search of the houses of Austin Griffith and appellant discovered pieces of fresh beef in each \u2014 in Griffith\u2019s the hind quarter with most of the meat gone, and in appellant\u2019s about 15 lbs. of meat cut from the hind quarter. The bones were split, and the bones of the two pieces of meat fitted each other, and all belonged to the same quarter. The quarter was small, and would have weighed about 50 lbs. The meat in appellant\u2019s house was found in a barrel in a side room.\nForrest testified that about a year after' appellant was arrested, and after he had run off and forfeited his bail, \u201che came back, and that he saw him on Austin Griffith\u2019s front porch playing cards on Sunday morning, and appellant told him he would not have killed his yearling if he had known it belonged to him (Forrest), and if witness had come to him, instead of having him arrested, he would have paid him $50, rather than gone to trial about it, but that now he would get nothing.\u201d\nWatt Strickland testified that, after appellant had been arrested and released on bond, he came to his house, and, not finding him, met him in the road, and said: \u201cWell, they have me arrested about stealing a beef, and are going to have my trial. Will you say that I got the beef from you?\u201d I said: \u201cI don\u2019t know, Lynn.\u201d He and I talked a few minutes, and I said: \u201cYes, I will say it if it will do you any good. \u201d He stated further that on the day of the trial appellant\u2019s attorney asked him if he was going to swear that Lynn got the beef from him, and he replied: \u201cNo, I can\u2019t do that.\u201d The attorney said: \u201cWhy, it is not going to hurt you? \u201d and I said: \u201c I just naturally can\u2019t do it, and won\u2019t do it.\u201d And, further, that he did not sell Lynn Adams any beef on the Saturday before the Sunday on which the meat was discovered in his house.\nAppellant denied that he killed the yearling, claiming that he bought the beef found in his house Sunday from a negro peddler, whom he had never seen before or since, on the Saturday evening before; denied having had any conversation with Watt Strickland; said he stayed around Haywood for two or three months after his arrest and release, and then went to his brother\u2019s in Woodruff County, not knowing that he was on bond, saying: \u201cI asked Mr. Willey about the case, and he said: \u2018What did your lawyers tell you?\u2019 and I told him they told me to go on home. He said \u2018Well, if they want you, they will send for you.\u2019\u201d Also that he gave his cotton crop away, and moved to Cotton Plant in Woodruff County in 1908 before Christmas, and stayed there until September, 1910; and, continuing: \u201cI heard what Mr. John Forrest had to say this morning in regard to a conversation I had with him, and in response will say that I have not said two words to him since he had me arrested. I have not been in the sound of his voice before now since he had me arrested, * * * nor have I seen Mr. Forrest from the time I left the Haywood place in 1908 until this morning at the trial of this case. \u201d\nLiza Johnson testified that she lived with Lynn Adams on the Haywood place in 1908 before he was arrested for killing the yearling; that he bought the beef found in his house at the time of the search from a peddler passing in a wagon Saturday evening; that he never had bought any beef from that man before nor after that day; that she did not know the man and paid no attention to his team.\nJeff Adams, appellant\u2019s brother, testified that Lynn lived in Wocdruff County in 1909 and part of 1910, \u201cup until last winter.\u201d That he did not come back during that time to Jefferson County or Haywood plantation, so far as he knew, and \u201cI suppose he could have gone without slipping off and without my knowing it. \u201d\nThe evidence establishes the venue (Douglass v. State, 91 Ark. 495), and is sufficient to sustain the verdict.\nNeither did the court err in refusing to grant a new trial for the newly discovered evidence. If appellant was surprised at the statement of the witness Forrest of the conversation he claimed to have had with him, he should have asked that the proceedings be suspended and the case continued, giving him an opportunity to meet it. He did not do this, and, knowing the truth or falsity of the statement when it was made, elected to go to trial on his own and his brother\u2019s testimony contradicting it and take his chances of an acquittal. Having done so and lost, he can not expect a rehearing on that account. Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Parrish, 66 Ark. 620.\nThe alleged newly-discovered evidence was shown by the affidavits to be statements of various persons in Woodruff County that appellant lived there during the year 1909 and until the fall of 1910, and was not in Jefferson County during that time, and was cumulative to his own and his brother\u2019s testimony, its effect being to contradict, the testimony of the State\u2019s witness, Forrest, and impeach him. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a new trial on account of it. Douglass v. State, 91 Ark. 492.\nThe judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Kirby, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "S. J. Hunt and A. T. Whitelaw, for appellant.", "Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and William H. Rector, Assistant, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Adams v. State.\nOpinion delivered October 2, 1911.\n1. Venue \u2014 circumstantial evidence. \u2014 Proof that a yearling cow belonging to the prosecuting witness in a prosecution for its theft was killed in the county and was found in defendant\u2019s possession in such county, is sufficient proof of the venue. (Page 206.)\n2. New trial \u2014 surprise.\u2014Where a party is surprised at the trial by testimony which he knows to be false, he should ask for a suspension of the trial to enable him to meet such evidence; and if he goes to trial, taking the chances of acquittal, he can not ask for a new trial. (Page 206.)\n3. Same \u2014 new evidence. \u2014 It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse a new trial for newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative. (Page 206.)\nAppeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Antonio B. Grace, Judge;\naffirmed.\nS. J. Hunt and A. T. Whitelaw, for appellant.\n1. The venue in a criminal case is jurisdictional and must be proved, and without such proof a conviction cannot be had. 77 Ark. 19; 58 Ark. 390; 68 Ark. 242; 91 Ark. 492; 67 Ark. 512.\n2. The alleged confession detailed to the jury by the witness Forrest was a complete surprise to the defendant. After the trial he learned of eight witnesses by whom he could prove that he was not in Jefferson County where the confession was alleged to have been made, but was in fact in Woodruff County, and had been for several months. The court erred in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Kirby\u2019s Dig. \u00a7 2422, subdiv. 7; 66 Ark. 612; 17 Ark. 404; 2 Ark. 133; 13 Ark. 361; 28 Ark. 131; 33 Ark. 180-186; 38 Ark. 498; 41 Ark. 229; 54 Ark. 364.\nHal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and William H. Rector, Assistant, for appellee.\nThis court will not reverse for failure to grant a new trial on account of newly discovered evidence, where such evidence is merely cumulative in its nature and impeaching in character. 91 Ark. 492; 17 Ark. 404; 28 Ark. 531; 38 Ark. 498; 39 Ark. 221; 40 Ark. 445; 45 Ark. 328; 55 Ark. 324; 66 Ark. 523; 77 Ark. 404." }, "file_name": "0203-01", "first_page_order": 225, "last_page_order": 229 }