{
  "id": 1485022,
  "name": "Parnell v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parnell v. State",
  "decision_date": "1944-01-17",
  "docket_number": "4338",
  "first_page": "652",
  "last_page": "654",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 Ark. 652"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "176 S.W.2d 902"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "24 Ark. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726931
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/24/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ark. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ark. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726590
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "416"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/19/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 S. W. 631",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Ark. 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1546877
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/93/0585-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4256,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8318357476352934e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8392269201795163
    },
    "sha256": "08d0521f15b17b75cb75eafb87c4a4e870c4aacd842a069073d22762b916a206",
    "simhash": "1:c081d6a7097d2c23",
    "word_count": 744
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:20:24.664732+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Parnell v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holt, J.\nAppellant, Hubert Parnell, on October 15, 1943, was charged with the crime of murder in the first degree, committed by the fatal shooting of Harry Henderson, town marshal of Bradford, White county, Arkansas. . He was committed to jail without bail, (\u00a7 3750, Pope\u2019s Digest) by a justice of the peace of White county, there to await the action of the circuit court.\nOn tlie 16tli day of October, by petition to tlie White circuit court, appellant was granted a writ of habeas corpus and after hearing before the court, at which many witnesses testified on behalf of the petitioner and the state, bail was denied.\nAppellant has, by certiorari, brought to this court a transcript of the proceedings in the court below, to the end .that the order of the court, refusing bail, might be reviewed here.\nAppellant argues that the action of the trial court \u201cin refusing to grant the petitioner bail was arbitrary and was not supported by the proof introduced on said petition, \u2019 \u2019 and that the court erred in denying bail.\nOn application for bail, for a capital offense, such as is presented here, our Constitution, (art. II, \u00a7 8) provides that the application will be denied \u201cwhen the proof is evident or the presumption great. \u2019 \u2019 In considering the evidence to determine whether the guilt of the accused is \u201cevident or the presumption great,\u201d the judge of the court, who hears the testimony and observes the demeanor of the witnesses, while on the stand, is in a much better position to judge of the credit that should be given their statements than this court could possibly be. Unless it should appear to this court from a review of the evidence presented that there has been an abuse of discretion in denying bail, or that the trial court has acted arbitrarily in the matter, we should not disturb the order denying bail.\nIn the case of Carr v. State, 93 Ark. 585, 122 S. W. 631, in an opinion by Judge Battle, this court said: \u201cDid the circuit judge commit a reversible error in refusing to grant bail? The Constitution provides: \u2018All persons shall,- before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption is great.\u2019 In Ex parte Good, 19 Ark. 410, 416, this court held that the power of revising the action of a court or judge refusing hail should be cautiously exercised, and that the decision of the court or judge \u2018should not be overturned except in cases of manifest error.\u2019 In Ex parte Jones, 20 Ark. 9, and Ex parte Bird, 24 Ark. 275, Ex parte Good was approved; but the court said we should \u2018not lose sight of the humane principle of the law that requires every reasonable doubt to go to the benefit of the prisoner.\u2019 We should also not lose sight of the provision of the Constitution which declares that persons shall not be bailable in capital cases \u2018when the proof is evident or the presumption is great,\u2019 and the object of bail, which is to secure the attendance of the prisoner. In cases where it will not in all probability be sufficient for that purpose it should be denied, and that is in .capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption great. In such cases the temptation to forfeit the bail in preference to endangering life by \u00e1 trial might be beyond resistance. Hence in cases like this we should consider the evidence heard by the circuit judge as a whole and the reasonable doubt that the prisoner will be entitled to on a trial, and if, so considering, we find that \u2018 the evidence is clear and strong, leading a well guarded and dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been committed, that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered, \u2019 the judgment or order of the circuit judge or court denying bail should be affirmed, and, if otherwise, should be reversed.\u201d\nGuided by the above principle of law, and after a careful review of the' testimony presented, we conclude that the judgment or order denying bail should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred M. Pickens, for appellant.",
      "Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Parnell v. State.\n4338\n176 S. W. 2d 902\nOpinion delivered January 17, 1944.\nFred M. Pickens, for appellant.\nGuy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0652-01",
  "first_page_order": 672,
  "last_page_order": 674
}