{
  "id": 1580368,
  "name": "McCain v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "McCain v. State",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "75",
  "last_page": "76",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 Ark. 75"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "153 Pa. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 Iowa 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        2136475
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/119/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 Mo. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "case_ids": [
        8843290
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo/121/0405-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C. 684",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653923
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0684-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S. W. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Ark. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1546862
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "427"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/93/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ark. 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1352038
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/103/0119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 Ark. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1337117
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/110/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S. W. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1913443
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/52/0273-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1913344
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/52/0303-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Ark. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1546834
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/93/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ark. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1501013
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/76/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ark. 587",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1491176
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/80/0587-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ark. 480",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875707
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/34/0480-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ark. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1913443
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/52/0273-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 3640,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1606857138802962e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5840066351358708
    },
    "sha256": "bebeec428d7b1bbdbb86dd0f5c897c85139833f87dc50776441a2d511f8d18d9",
    "simhash": "1:33e5194271a071e1",
    "word_count": 659
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:39:57.297487+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "McCain v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and at his trial one Perry Smith gave testimony of a highly damaging character against him. This testimony was in direct conflict with the testimony of appellant and of the witnesses in his behalf, and, by way of impeachment of Smith, appellant undertook to show the bias of the witness. As tending to show this bias, the witness was asked if he. had not\u2019 told Judge Denman, on the day that Slagle (the deceased) was killed, that, if he had had a pistol, he (Smith) would have killed appellant himself. Smith denied having made this statement. Den-man was called and asked if Smith had not made this statement to him; but the court refused to permit Denman to answer.\nIn defense of this action of the court, the rule is invoked that, where a witness is cross-examined on a matter collateral to the issue, his answer can not subsequently be contradicted by the party asking the question.- But this rule is not applicable here, for the bias of a witness is not a collateral matter, and, if the witness gives a false answer to a question which would reveal the bias, the falsity of the answer may be shown by other testimony. As was said in the case of Peters v. State, 103 Ark. 125, \u201cIt is competent to contradict the testimony of a witness relative to statements or expressions made by such witness tending to show bias or undue feeling against a defendant.\u201d See, also, Crumpton v. State, 52 Ark. 273; Butler v. State, 34 Ark. 480; K. C. So. Ry. Co. v. Belknap, 80 Ark. 587; Hinson v. State, 76 Ark. 366; Adams v. State, 93 Ark. 260; Billings v. State, 52 Ark. 303.\nError is assigned in the refusal of the court to give an instruction numbered 5, asked by appellant. But insofar as this instruction correctly declared the law applicable to the theory of the defense, it may be said that the law was covered by instructions 1, 2 and 3, given at the request of the appellant.\nOther assignments of error are discussed in the briefs; but they relate to matters which are not likely to recur at the next trial, or to questions too well settled to require further discussion.\nFor the error indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. F. Denman and J. O. A. Bush, for appellant.",
      "John D. ArbucMe, Attorney General, and T. W. Campbell, Assistant, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "McCain v. State.\nOpinion delivered May 7, 1917.\n1. Evidence \u2014 bias op witness \u2014 how proved. \u2014 Where a witness gives a false answer to a question which would reveal his bias, the falsity of the answer may be shown by other testimony.\n2. Evidence \u2014 contradiction op witness. \u2014 It is competent to contradict the testimony of a witness relative to statements or expressions made by such witness tending to show bias or undue feeling against a defendant.\nAppeal from Nevada Circuit Court; George R. Haynie, Judge;\nreversed.\nW. F. Denman and J. O. A. Bush, for appellant.\n1. The court erred in not allowing the witness Den-man to answer the question showing Smith a biased witness. 52 Ark. 273; Jones on Evidence, \u00a7 828. This was not a collateral matter.\n2. The court erred in its instructions. 144 S. W. 485-7; 2 Bish. Cr. Proc. (4 ed.), \u00a7 611; Wharton on Homicide (3 ed.), \u00a7 263; 110 Ark. 15.\nJohn D. ArbucMe, Attorney General, and T. W. Campbell, Assistant, for appellee.\n1. There was no error in refusing to permit Denman to contradict Smith on cross-examination. Where a witness is cross-examined on a collateral issue, his answer can not be subsequently contradicted by the party putting the question. 103 Ark. 119; 117 Id. 64; 34 Id. 480; 1 Wharton on Ev., \u00a7 599.\n2. There is no error in the court\u2019s charge. 93 Ark. 409; 72 Id. 427; 144 S. W. 487; 121 N. C. 684; 121 Mo. 405; 119 Iowa 1; 153 Pa. 452; 168 111. 93."
  },
  "file_name": "0075-01",
  "first_page_order": 99,
  "last_page_order": 100
}