{
  "id": 1467117,
  "name": "Price v. City of Trumann",
  "name_abbreviation": "Price v. City of Trumann",
  "decision_date": "1948-03-15",
  "docket_number": "4478",
  "first_page": "50",
  "last_page": "52",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 Ark. 50"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "209 S.W.2d 284"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "101 S. W. 2d 787",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 Ark. 1179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 S. W. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 Ark. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1366119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/151/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 S. W. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 Ark. 648",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1367876
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/150/0648-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S. W. 999",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 Ark. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1576696
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/132/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 S. W. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ark. 245",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1350629
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/104/0245-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ark. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892005
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/45/0361-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 S. W. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ark. 188",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888702
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/47/0188-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ark. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725683
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/18/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ark. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727756
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/10/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 S. W. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ark. 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1309636
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/49/0060-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 3367,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4975956836136062e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6644985865971337
    },
    "sha256": "e5fbace1dadf675d1f15b08973bb1dff9a25622b4063a4ffc1524d6517e3d166",
    "simhash": "1:e093d95f16e760a0",
    "word_count": 581
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:58:24.264428+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Price v. City of Trumann."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robins, J.\nOn appeal from mayor\u2019s court, a trial jury in circuit court found appellant guilty of \u201caccessory to assault and battery, \u2019 \u2019 fixing his fine at $100. He asks us to reverse the judgment entered on the verdict.\nAppellant urges that the lower court erred in not instructing the jury to acquit him of assault and battery for the reason that the evidence did not show that appellant actually struck Meeker, the prosecuting witness. But Gardner, a companion of appellant, after appellant had alighted from the car in which appellant and Gardner were riding, with the announced intention of attacking Meeker, did Strike and beat Meeker. As a result, Meeker\u2019s jaw was broken and his skull fractured.\nWhile Gardner was beating Meeker appellant was standing nearby.\nAll persons concerned in the commission of a misdemeanor are guilty as principals. \u201cAll who procure, participate in, or assent to the commission of a misdemeanor, are punishable as principals.\u201d Crocker v. State, 49 Ark. 60, 4 S. W. 197. To the same effect are these decisions: Hubbard v. State, 10 Ark. 378; Sanders v. State, 18 Ark. 198; Fortenbury v. State, 47 Ark. 188,1 S. W. 58; Foster v. State, 45 Ark. 361. And, since the adoption of Initiated Act No. 3 of 1936 (Acts of 1937, p. 1384), the distinction between principals and accessories in all criminal cases has been abolished. ,\nThe fact that the jury, in their verdict, somewhat ineptly described the offense as \u201caccessory to assault and battery\u201d is not material. It reflects, however, that the jury concluded that, though no blow was struck by appellant, appellant was standing by, aiding in or encouraging the commission of 'the assault by Gardner.\nIt is argued by appellant that the evidence was not sufficient to show appellant\u2019s guilt. The testimony disclosed that several young couples- \u2014 -among them appellant, Gardner and Meeker \u2014 had been going from one drinking place to another. \u2022 Most of them, including the girls, acquired varying degrees of intoxication. One of the girls became offended at another girl in the crowd and offered to fight her. The quarrel was then taken up by the boys. The car in which appellant and Gardner were riding was stopped in front of Meeker, and appellant got out of the car, saying he was going to whip Meeker. Meeker protested that he did not know what the fuss was about. At this juncture Gardner came up and said that he could whip Meeker, which appellant allowed him to do.\nUnder this proof the jury was justified in finding that appellant was not merely a spectator, but was a participant in the fight. Hunter v. State, 104 Ark. 245, 149 S. W. 99.\nAppellant contends that certain instructions given by the lower court were erroneous. We have examined them and find that they correctly stated the principles of law involved. However, appellant made no objection to any of these instructions below. Therefore, even if any of them was erroneous, objection relative thereto could not be raised for the first time in this court. Baine v. State, 132 Ark. 416, 200 S. W. 999; Cegars v. State, 150 Ark. 648, 235 S. W. 36; Walker v. State, 151 Ark. 394. 236 S. W. 627; Medlock v. State, 193 Ark. 1179, 101 S. W. 2d 787.\nThe judgment of the lower court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robins, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bon McCourtney and Claucle B. Brinton, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Price v. City of Trumann.\n4478\n209 S. W. 2d 284\nOpinion delivered March 15, 1948.\nBon McCourtney and Claucle B. Brinton, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0050-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 68
}