{
  "id": 1564905,
  "name": "McLaughlin v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "McLaughlin v. State",
  "decision_date": "1915-02-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "154",
  "last_page": "156",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "117 Ark. 154"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "169 S. W. 790",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ark. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1542003
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/96/0175-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ark. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1903698
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/60/0521-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ark. 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1495613
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/79/0293-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ark. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1542003
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/96/0175-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ark. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1903698
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/60/0521-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 3119,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.381974123651258e-07,
      "percentile": 0.796928315125708
    },
    "sha256": "ea408451da12c1968ea39adab095ab8e17155409392903b7965e6e7828dec384",
    "simhash": "1:932bf72985e25830",
    "word_count": 534
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:56:14.924196+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "McLaughlin v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellant was convicted of the crime of rape under the following indictment (omitting formal' parts) :\n\u201cThe said Neal McLaughlin, on the 14th day of June, 1914, in the county and district aforesaid, in and upon one Martha Byford, a female person, forcibly, violently, and feloniously did rape and assault her, the said Martha Byford, then and there violently, forcibly and against her will and consent feloniously did ravish-and carnally know, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.\u201d\nIt is insisted that the indictment is bad, and does not charge a crime, in that the \u201cassault\u201d is not charged to have been made until after the alleged \u2018 \u2018 rape, \u2019 and that the indictment is multifarious in alleging that the appellant \u201cviolently, forcibly and against her will and consent feloniously did ravish and carnally know. \u2019 \u2019\nWe think the indictment in this case is sufficient. It follows very closely the indictment set out in the case of Downs v. State, 60 Ark. 521, which was there held sufficient. This indictment meets all the requirements of the law. Beard v. State, 79 Ark. 293.\nIt is further insisted that the evidence is insufficient to support the charge, and that error was committed in the instructions given.\nThese questions are not before us for review. Such questions can only be presented by a bill of exceptions filed within the time allowed by law and fixed by the court. The record shows that the bill -of exceptions in this case was not filed for more than .a month 'after the expiration of the time allowed for that purpose. Appellant filed his motion for a new trial on the 2d of October, and was given thirty days within which to file his bill of exceptions, but no bill of exceptions was tendered to and signed by the judge until the 26th day of December, 1914,' and it was not filed in the office of the clerk until the 28th day of December, 1914. There is, therefore, no bill of exceptions in this case, and we can not consider either the sufficiency of the evidence or the correctness of the instructions. Green v. State, 96 Ark. 175.\nThe judgment of the court below is, therefore, affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John D. Arbuohle and J. V. Bourland, for appellant.",
      "Wm. L. Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "McLaughlin v. State.\nOpinion delivered February 22, 1915.\n1. Rape\u2014sufficiency of indictment.\u2014The indictment, in a prosecution ior \u00a1the crime of rape, held sufficient.\n2. APPEAL AND EEEOK\u2014SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE\u2014BIEL OF EXCEPTIONS.The question of the sufficiency of -the evidence to support the verdict of the jury, or the correctness of instructions given \u00a1by the court, can only 'he presented by a bill of exceptions filed within the \u25a0time allowed by law and fixed by the court.\nAppeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge;\naffirmed.\nJohn D. Arbuohle and J. V. Bourland, for appellant.\nThe indictment charges no crime. The evidence is wholly insufficient to convict .and the instructions are \u25a0 misleading.\nWm. L. Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.\n1. The indictment sufficiently charges the crime. 60 Ark. 521; 79 Id. 293.\n2. There is no bill of exceptions. It was not filed in time. 96 Ark. 175; 169 S. W. 790."
  },
  "file_name": "0154-01",
  "first_page_order": 180,
  "last_page_order": 182
}