{
  "id": 1470242,
  "name": "Elliott v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elliott v. State",
  "decision_date": "1948-01-19",
  "docket_number": "4479",
  "first_page": "710",
  "last_page": "712",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 Ark. 710"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "207 S.W.2d 724"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "77 S. W. 2d 444",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 Ark. 465",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1421953
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/190/0465-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 S. W. 530",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 Ark. 441",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1499112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/77/0441-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 245,
    "char_count": 3041,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05508583705073153
    },
    "sha256": "95c0775ad780d986e74673286a20f018ede35698a0707d62e484043505e0de4d",
    "simhash": "1:d93f9b3620b7c1c9",
    "word_count": 519
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:33.594173+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Elliott v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robins, J.\nAppellant, Note Elliott, was charged by information with the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor for sale. A jury found him guilty and fixed his punishment at & -fine of $250. He urges these two grounds for reversal of the judgment entered on the verdict: First, that the lower court erred in instructing- the jury that conviction might be had if the illegal act was committed within one year of the filing of the information, instead of telling the jury that the illegal act must have been committed within one year of the date fixed in the information; and, second, that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt.\nI.\nThe court did not err in instructing the jury that they might find the defendant guilty if it was shown that the illegal possession occurred within one year before filing of the information. Stelle v. State, 77 Ark. 441, 92 S. W. 530; Pate v. Toler, 190 Ark. 465, 77 S. W. 2d 444.\n__ For the court to have instructed the jury that the illegal possession might have occurred within one year before the date fixed in the information would have been erroneous. The limitation for prosecution of misdemeanors is one year. Section 3703, Pope\u2019s Digest. Under appellant\u2019s theory, the court might have authorized the jury to convict for \u00e1n act that occurred more than a year before the filing of the information.\nH.\nThe sheriff of Drew county testified that on a previous occasion he had reason to believe appellant was engaged in \u201cbootlegging,\u201d but not having proof thereof had warned appellant to desist; that on July 26, 1947, after obtaining a search warrant, he searched appellant\u2019s home and found there a suitcase containing seventeen half-pint bottles of liquor, with the seals thereon unbroken. From appellant\u2019s home the sheriff went to the \u201cEast End,\u201d where he found appellant\u2019s car parked at some \u201cnegro joints.\u201d He searched the car and found therein six more bottles of liquor behind the front seat. The sheriff further testified that appellant told him h^ was using the whiskey in his \u201cbusiness,\u201d that he (appellant) was playing dice games all the time, and he was using the whiskey to get the other players in such a condition as would enable appellant to win their money. There was no other testimony, except that of the sheriff.\nThe proof as to the amount of the liquor, the place and manner in which it was kept, as well as the explanation of his use of it given to the sheriff by appellant was sufficient to justify the jury\u2019s conclusion that the liquor was possessed illegally.\nNeither the provisions of Act 91 of the General Assembly of Arkansas, approved February 18,- 1947, nor the provisions of Act No. 423 of the General Assembly of Arkansas, approved March 28,1947, were invoked in this case.\nThe judgment of the lower court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robins, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. C. Hollensworth, for appellant.",
      "Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Elliott v. State.\n4479\n207 S. W. 2d 724\nOpinion delivered January 19, 1948.\nRehearing denied February 16, 1948.\nG. C. Hollensworth, for appellant.\nGuy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0710-01",
  "first_page_order": 726,
  "last_page_order": 728
}