{
  "id": 1360510,
  "name": "Johnson v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1922-10-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "400",
  "last_page": "402",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "155 Ark. 400"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "121 Ark. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1559413
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/121/0570-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1913401
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/52/0180-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2531,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05125491872306069
    },
    "sha256": "c1ed2bf1ce88dff74cf19c8302056c4164778ba1437d691ab327f682fa98b3f0",
    "simhash": "1:8c27482ab6361dbb",
    "word_count": 429
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:22:10.433219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Johnson v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nThe appellant was convicted of the crime of keeping a gambling-house under section 2632, Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest. A judgment was entered sentencing bim to two years\u2019 imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, from which he appeals.\nJeff Jones, a witness on behalf of the State, testified to facts which fully justified the jury in returning a verdict of guilty. The appellant does not contend that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict, but complains because the witness, Jones, was permitted, over the objection of appellant, to testify that one time the appellant cursed him and threatened his life because he (Jones) requested that the appellant return a dollar to him which Jones claimed he had given to 'appellant for the purpose of inducing the appellant to sign an appearance bond for Jones. The specific testimony of Jones to which the appellant objected was as-follows: \u201cI went to Dave and I asked Dave to give me my dollar and Dave said, \u2018I ain\u2019t going to\u2019give you a damn thing\u2014 I will blow your G \u2014 \u2022 damn brains out if you don\u2019t get out of here.\u2019 I said, \u2018Well, that is all you can do is to blow my brains out.\u2019 He said, \u2018G\u2014 damn you, if I thought you had a pocket-knife I would blow you down right here,\u2019 and my wife and another girl was together with me.\u201d\nThe court permitted this evidence on the ground that it tended to show the interest and feeling of the witness and might be considered by the jury in weighing the witness \u2019 testimony. It was certainly not prejudicial to appellant to permit testimony tending to prove that the witness, upon whose testimony the State relied for conviction, was strongly prejudiced against the appellant. Such, testimony was favorable to the appellant, and be is in no attitude to complain of the ruling of the court. Fort v. State, 52 Ark. 180; National Produce Co. v. Garrett, 121 Ark. 570.\nSince the ruling of the court was not prejudicial to appellant, the judgment is correct and it is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Randolph & Cobb, for appellant.",
      "J. 8. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godivin and Wm. T. Hammock, Assistant\u00ae, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Johnson v. State.\nOpinion delivered October 30, 1922.\nCriminal law \u2014 harmless error. \u2014 Evidence tending to show that a State\u2019s witness whose testimony was relied upon for conviction was prejudiced against accused, admitted as hearing upon the weight to he given such witness\u2019 testimony, was favorable to defendant and is not ground for reversal on defendant\u2019s appeal.\nAppeal from Garland Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge,\naffirmed.\nRandolph & Cobb, for appellant.\nJ. 8. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godivin and Wm. T. Hammock, Assistant\u00ae, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0400-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 426
}