{
  "id": 1467055,
  "name": "Holliman v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holliman v. State",
  "decision_date": "1948-10-04",
  "docket_number": "4511",
  "first_page": "876",
  "last_page": "877",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 Ark. 876"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "213 S.W.2d 617"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "53 S. W. 2d 226",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 Ark. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720562
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/186/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 S. W. 971",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 Ark. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571599
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/135/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 S. W. 968",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 Ark. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1586146
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/145/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 Ark. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1485132
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/206/0503-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 S. W. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 Ark. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 S. W. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 Ark. 654",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 S. W. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 Ark. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1594380
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/140/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 S. W. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 Ark. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1378558
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/166/0499-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3040,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.979074161916996e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8508855149470105
    },
    "sha256": "aff0087649d3934b3f4cef68ae08f6f5a3ed0db6a3ea7da73afe80d682fea8ac",
    "simhash": "1:b368c51361c20980",
    "word_count": 556
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:58:24.264428+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Holliman v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holt, J.\nAppellant, Jim Holliman, by information was charged with two offenses, burglary and grand larceny. A jury convicted him on both charges and fixed his punishment for grand larceny at one year in the State Penitentiary and two years on the charge of burglary. From the judgment in which the trial court directed the terms to run concurrently, is this appeal.\nFor reversal, appellant argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdicts and that there was error in admission of certain testimony as to an alleged confession.\nAt the outset, we are met with the State\u2019s contention that there was no motion for a new trial and no proper bill of exceptions presented for our consideration. After a careful review of the record, we have reached the conclusion that both of the State\u2019s contentions must be sustained.\nThere is no motion for a new trial in this record, and as was said hy this Court in State v. Moore, 166 Ark. 499, 266 S. W. 460, \u201cit is a well settled rule of this Court that, where there is no motion for a new trial, only errors appearing on the face of the record will be considered on appeal. Smith v. Wallis-McKinney Coal Co., 140 Ark. 218, 215 S. W. 385; Free v. Adams, 148 Ark. 654, 228 S. W. 371. The same rule applies in regard to the bill of exceptions. Crow v. Cox, 158 Ark. 641, 251 S. W. 676.\u201d\nWe find no error on the face of the record. See, also, City of Monticello v. Kimbro, 206 Ark. 503, 176 S. W. 2d 152.\nAs indicated, there is still another reason why this case must be affirmed and that is that there is no proper bill of exceptions presented by the record for our consideration. What purports to be a bill of exceptions was not signed by the trial judge and in the absence of a bill of exceptions our review is limited to any errors appearing on the face of the record. As above indicated, no error appears on the face of the record here.\nIn Hobbs v. Bolz Cooperage Company, 145 Ark. 435, 224 S. W. 968, we said: \u201cThere is no bill of exceptions in the record \u2014 that which purports to be a bill of exceptions not being signed by the trial judge \u2014 therefore, we cannot review the proceedings for assigned errors occurring during the trial. We must assume, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and that the proceedings were free from error,\u201d and in Ward v. State, 135 Ark. 259, 204 S. W. 971, (headnote) this Court held: \u201cIt is necessary that the bill of exceptions, in a case where defendant has been convicted of a felony, shall be signed by the trial court.\u201d See, also, York v. State, 186 Ark. 260, 53 S. W. 2d 226.\nAppellant\u2019s assignment of errors in the instant case \u2019 was such 'as must have been brought into the record by proper bill of exceptions (Ward v. State, supra).\nFinding no error, the judgment- is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert J. Brown, for appellant.",
      "Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Holliman v. State.\n4511\n213 S. W. 2d 617\nOpinion delivered October 4, 1948.\nRobert J. Brown, for appellant.\nGuy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Oscar E. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0876-01",
  "first_page_order": 892,
  "last_page_order": 893
}