{ "id": 1432111, "name": "French v. State", "name_abbreviation": "French v. State", "decision_date": "1933-06-19", "docket_number": "Crim. 3839", "first_page": "782", "last_page": "785", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "187 Ark. 782" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "271 S. W. 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 Ark. 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724803 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/168/0710-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 S. W. 995", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 Ark. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1385525 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/162/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 S. W. 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "159 Ark. 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724413 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/159/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S. W. 409", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 Ark. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722278 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0444-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 288, "char_count": 3894, "ocr_confidence": 0.513, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.797212500296877e-08, "percentile": 0.5326588538559583 }, "sha256": "72fa4da19f202d3b94c42eeff0ab9db9ef64ed7740c2cbdd2b8d46bfe35f51d1", "simhash": "1:af92915f04e74f70", "word_count": 668 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:01.606684+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "French v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Johnson, C. J.,\n(after stating the facts). The first insistence is that the trial court erred in overruling appellant\u2019s motion for a continuance.\nIt is the well-settled law in this State that continuances are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and that a refusal to grant a continuance is never ground for a new trial, unless it clearly appears to have been an abuse of such discretion and manifestly operates as a denial of justice. Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444, 86 S. W. 409; Wood v. State, 159 Ark. 671, 252 S. W. 897.\nFrom the statement of facts it appears that the only material testimony offered to be established by the absent witness was that the still which was found by the officers was located one-half mile distant from appellant\u2019s home. The witness John Rogers, who was present at the trial, testified to this same fact, therefore, the evidence of the absent witness would have been cumulative only. For this reason, if no other, the trial court was fully warranted in overruling the motion for continuance.\nIt is next insisted that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict of not guilty in behalf of appellant. This is based upon the theory that the still which was found by the officers had no worm attached thereto.\nIf juries and trial courts could not convict defendants for possessing a still merely because some necessary part thereof had been detached, future convictions would certainly be imperiled. It is for the jury to determine whether or not the defendant was in possession of a complete still, and they should take into consideration all the facts and circumstances in evidence to determine this fact, and, when they have done so, trial courts and this court will not disturb their findings merely because some material part of the still was detached and not found.\nIt is next insisted on behalf of appellant that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial because Ulyless Lefevers, an accepted juror in said case, was biased and had expressed an opinion before the trial that defendant was guilty. The trial court heard testimony on this question of fact and decided that the juror was not biased and had not expressed an opinion before the trial.\nThis court held in Hooper v. State, ante p. 88, as follows : \u2018 \u2018 The trial court heard evidence on this question and decided against the contention of appellant. The testimony was in conflict. The finding of the judge on questions of fact properly submitted to him is as conclusive here as the finding of a jury.\u201d Citing a number of cases.\nLastly, it is contended that this case should be reversed because the record does not reveal the names of all the bystanders who were summoned to complete the jury. The record does show the names of all jurors accepted in this case.\nSection 6378 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest provides: \u201cIf a jury cannot be obtained out of said panel of regular petit jurors, bystanders shall be summoned to complete such jury, and the oath mentioned in \u00a7 6375 shall be administered to said bystanders, and the record sh\u00e1ll contain the names of said bystanders.\u201d This section of the statute is cited as authority for appellant\u2019s contention. \u201cThe record shall contain the names of all bystanders, etc.,\u201d is directory merely and not mandatory.\nAt any rate, we cannot conceive appellant\u2019s rights being jeopardized by noncompliance with the quoted section of the statute. It is certainly not an irregularity about which he should complain. In a long line of decisions this court has held criminal cases will not be reversed for nonprejudicial errors. Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530, 258 S. W. 995; Perkins v. State, 168 Ark. 710, 271 S. W. 326.\nNo prejudicial errors appearing, the judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Johnson, C. J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Oscar E. Ellis, for appellant.", "Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Pat Mehaffy, Assistant, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "French v. State.\nCrim. 3839\nOpinion delivered June 19, 1933.\nOscar E. Ellis, for appellant.\nHal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Pat Mehaffy, Assistant, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0782-01", "first_page_order": 802, "last_page_order": 805 }