{
  "id": 8718213,
  "name": "Weldon v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Weldon v. State",
  "decision_date": "1929-02-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "10",
  "last_page": "12",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "179 Ark. 10"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "212 S. W. 93",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ark. 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1596416
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/139/0013-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 S. W. 542",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 Ark. 283",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721602
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/160/0283-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 S. W. 327",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 Ark. 211",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2435,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2269389344706595e-07,
      "percentile": 0.778369318056767
    },
    "sha256": "e539d361956c808dffd7dc6672ca686b15a70017bbd0427f2f74b652d84cffe1",
    "simhash": "1:23737fc1aa288c7e",
    "word_count": 431
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:09.982065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Weldon v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Kirby, J.\nAppellant prosecutes this appeal from a judgment of conviction for the crime of assault with the intent to rob one Bnd Smith.\nBnd Smith detailed the circumstances, and stated that, when he had stopped his ear at the forks of the road on the night of the robbery, on the way back from Ozark Lithia Springs to Hot Springs, on a bright moonlight night, about 8:15, the defendant and appellant walked up and \u201cthrew a gun on him,\u201d and told him to get out of the car, to which he replied, \u201cWhat is this, a stick-up?\u201d Appellant said, \u201cYes,\u201d and, while he talked further with appellant, he took out his watch and put it down on the seat. Appellant made him get out of the car, and took him over and searched him, and came back to the car and looked over it with his flashlight, and took the watch. He reported the robbery, and appellant' was arrested next morning, and identified by him. Smith stated that he positively identified the appellant as the man who robbed him, and denied that he had not been positive about his identification of appellant in the examining trial, although he admitted that he might have said that he could be mistaken.\nAppellant relied upon an alibi as a defense, and introduced testimony in support of his plea, also some witnesses who stated what appellant had testified to in the examining court, Judge Ledgerwood among the number, who testified that, in answer to the question from defendant\u2019s attorney, \u201cBud, is there not a chance of your being mistaken as to the identity of the defendant?\u201d Smith replied, saying, \u201cYes, there is always a chance for one to make a mistake.\u201d\nThere were no objections to the court\u2019s charge to the jury, and the only contention here is that the testimony, is-insufficient to support the verdict.\nSmith, the injured party, however, positively identified the appellant as the man who had presented a gun against him, searched and robbed him, and that testimony was sufficient to warrant the verdict, the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses being for the determination of the jury. Canada v. State, 169 Ark. 211, 275 S. W. 327; Cox v. State, 160 Ark. 283, 254 S. W. 542; and Nelson v. State, 139 Ark. 13, 212 S. W. 93.\nWe find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Kirby, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Berry H. Randolphf for appellant;",
      "Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Robert F. Smith, Assistant, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Weldon v. State.\nOpinion delivered February 18, 1929.\nBerry H. Randolphf for appellant;\nHal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Robert F. Smith, Assistant, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0010-01",
  "first_page_order": 28,
  "last_page_order": 30
}