{
  "id": 1562547,
  "name": "Robinson v. City of Malvern",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robinson v. City of Malvern",
  "decision_date": "1915-05-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "423",
  "last_page": "427",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 Ark. 423"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "45 Ark. 538",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ark. 598",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1347017
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/105/0598-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ark. 172",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1543590
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/95/0172-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ark. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "684"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 Ark. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ark. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1524414
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/84/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ark. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1310119
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/49/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Ark. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1546857
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/93/0313-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 427,
    "char_count": 8249,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.409,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.058410355198314654
    },
    "sha256": "eb874a96951a61eb779b60c2ace976a0a17e64e3786fcb7a170a42e1bc31adcf",
    "simhash": "1:8e34e5da42b9b6c1",
    "word_count": 1429
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:53:29.321926+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robinson v. City of Malvern."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\n(after stating the facts). The appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict, but this was an issue for the jury and there was evidence to warrant the verdict.\nThe court did noit err in overruling appellant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment. While the ordinance under which appellant was tried was not in conformity with the statute (section 1960 Kirby\u2019s Digest) as to the penalty iand was void because it prescribed a less penalty than that prescribed by the State laws (section 5464), nevertheless, appellant was not prejudiced because the fine adjudged against him was less than be would have had to pay had ihe been tried 'and convicted under the State law, section 1960 of Kirby\u2019s Digest.\nThe affidavit before the mayor, .setting forth the charge against appellant of resisting an officer in the language of the above statute (section 1960) was sufficient to give the mayor jurisdiction of the offense under section 5586 of Kirby\u2019s Digest.\nThe evidence, as we have seen, was sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty of the offense of resisting an officer under section 1960, supra, and appellant, under this .section, could have beeu fined in any sum not less than $50.00. He is therefore in no attitude to complain and is not prejudiced by the verdict and judgment. See Sellers v. State. 93 Ark. 313.\nThe court did not err in refusing appellant\u2019s prayer for instruction No. 4 as the same is abstract, there being no evidence upon which to base it, 'and, besides, it was argumentative in form. The other instructions correctly presented the issue of fact to the jury.\nThere being no error in the rulings of the court to the prejudice of 'appellant, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. S. Bowers, for appellant.",
      "W. Morton Garden and II. Berger, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robinson v. City of Malvern.\nOpinion delivered May 10, 1915.\n1. Criminal law \u2014 void ordinance \u2014 validity of conviction \u2014 resisting arrest. \u2014 Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of 'the crime \u25a0of resisting .an arrest, under a city ordinance which, provided for a maximum fine of $50.00. Kirby\u2019s Digest provides a minimum fine of $50.00 for a conviction for said offense. Held. While the ordinance under which .appellant was tried was not in conformity with Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 1960, .as to penalty, .and was void because it prescribed a less penalty than that prescribed by the 'State .laws, nevertheless, appellant was no-t prejudiced because the fine adjudged against him was less than he would have had to pay, had he been tried and convicted under the State laws.\n2. Resisting arrest \u2014 affidavit\u2014jurisdiction of mayor's court. \u2014 An affidavit before the mayor of an incorporated town, setting forth a charge against appellant of resisting .an .officer, under Kinby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 1960, is sufficient to give the mayor jurisdiction of the offense under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 5586.\nAppeal from Holt Spring Circuit Court, W. H. Evans, Judge,\naffirmed.\nstatement by the court.\nThe appellant was convicted of the crime of resisting \u25a0an officer in violation of an 'ordinance of the city of Malvern prescribing, 'that if any person .shall knowingly and wilfully obstruct or resist 'any sheriff or other ministerial officer in the service or execution of, or in the attempt to iserve or execute, any writ, warrant or process, original or judicial, in discharge of :any official duty, in case of \u00a1felony, or in other \u00a1ciase, \u00a1civil or \u00a1criminal, \u2019 \u2019 etc., \u201che shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction fined in any .sum not to exceed $50.00.\u201d The ordinance is \u00a1an exact copy of section 1960 \u00a1of Kirby\u2019s Digest, except that the maximum penalty under the ordinance was $50.00, whereas under section 1960 the minimum penalty is $50.00.\nThe testimony tended to \u00a1show that Lee Goodman, who was \u00a1a deputy \u00a1marshal of the city of Malvern, was on duty at the park within the corporate 'limits of the city; that appellant and another negro were fighting and Goodman tried to arrest appellant. He put his hand on appellant\u2019s shoulder and told 'him to consider himself under arrest, saying, \u201cYou are arrested.\u201d Appellant turned around quickly \u00a1and struck Goodman. Goodman \u25a0and \u00a1appellant clinched and then appellant was arrested by \u00a1another officer.\nAt the time 'the appellant \u00a1resisted the efforts of .the deputy marshal to arrest him the deputy had Ms badge pinned on the inside of Ms coat \u00a1but it could he seen. Appellant was personally acquainted with the deputy and knew that he was an officer. Appellant had seen the deputy make another \u00a1arrest at the \u00a1depot in 1913.\nThe 'above is \u00a1substantially the testimony on behalf of the city (\u00a1appellee here) on which the appellant was convicted.\nThe \u00a1appellant testified that wMle he was engaged in a fight with one Coulter, 'the marshal ran np \u00a1behind him and Mt him without saying \u00a1a word. \u201cHe didn\u2019t tell me,\u201d says the witness, \u201che was an officer, but came np and begun beating on me, and I turned \u00a1and clinched, as I had to fight both of them to protect myself. \u2019 \u2019\nThe appellant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:\n\u201cYou are further instructed that mere words spoken by Lee Goodman to the defendant to the effect to \u2018\u00a1cut that out,\u2019 or \u2018come anid go,\u2019 or any badge is not sufficient in law to inform the defendant \u00a1of his \u00a1arrest when the officer is unknown to him as an officer, and if yon believe from the evidence in this case that Lee Goodman used such word's and the defendant refused to' go with him, then the court tells yon that this would not be resisting on officer, and that yon must find the defendant not guilty.\u201d\nThe appellant also asked the court to instruct the jury \u201cthat the city of Malvern has failed to make out a case, and you will find the defendant not guilty.\u201d\nThe court instructed the jury at appellant\u2019s request as follows:\n\u201c2. Before you can find the defendant guilty of resisting an officer the city of Malvern must prove beyond a reasonable douJbt that Lee Goodman was an officer 'and that the defendant 'knew it .at the time and wilfully and 'knowingly refused to submit to the officer, and if they failed to prove these facts you should find the defendant not guilty.\u201d\n\u201c3. Although you may believe from the evidence in this 'ease that the defendant did assault Lee Goodman before he had time to arrest him, when they were both engaged in ia fight mutually, .and that defendant did not intend to resist him \u00a1as an officer, this would be a different offense and not the offense of resisting an officer, and you should find the defendant not guilty. \u2019 \u2019\n'The court also instructed the jury .as to the credibility of witnesses and on the presumption of innocence .and reasonable doubt, to which no exceptions were reserved.\nThe jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty and assessing his fine at $25.00 and judgment was entered for the fine and costs. 'The appellant moved in arrest of judgment, setting up that the city ordinance under which he was tried was void because in conflict with sections. 1960 and 5464 of Kirby\u2019s Digest. The court overruled the motion in arrest of judgment and appellant duly excepted to the ruling of the court. Appellant ialsO' filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he duly prosecutes this appeal.\nR. S. Bowers, for appellant.\n1. The evidenlee is not sufficient to support 'the verdict. The verdict is based on prejudice. Defendant had the right to resist an unlawful attack. 4 Elliott on Ev. $ 2837; 49 Ark. 543; Hughes Or. Law, \u00a7 1566; 56 Ark. 348; Kirby\u2019s Dig. \u00a7-2124; 84 Ark. 485. Defendant did not knew that Goodman was an officer.\n'2. The ordinance is void. Kirby\u2019s Dig. \u00a7 \u00a7 1.960, 5464; 87 Ark. 92; 37 Id. 356.\nW. Morton Garden and II. Berger, for appellee.\n1. The jury by their verdict has found 'the evidence sufficient to convict. This court will not disturb the verdict. 57 Ark. 577; 19 Id. 684; 13 Id. 285; 95 Id. 172;'104 Id. 162.\n2. The court properly instructed the jury. 95 Ark. 172; 104 Id. 162; 92 Id. 586; 91 Id. 224.\n3. The ordinance is not void. But the question cannot be raised.by motion in .arrest. Kirby\u2019s Dig. \u00a7-2326. The verdict was really too favorable to .appellant .and he cannot complain. 105 Ark. 598; 93 Id. 313.\n4. The affidavit for arrest follows the language of the statute substantially. 45 Ark. 538; 86 Id. 436; 94 Id. 210; 1.12 Id. 98."
  },
  "file_name": "0423-01",
  "first_page_order": 445,
  "last_page_order": 449
}