{
  "id": 1656544,
  "name": "Pemberton v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pemberton v. State",
  "decision_date": "1952-10-20",
  "docket_number": "4701",
  "first_page": "19",
  "last_page": "20",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 Ark. 19"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "251 S.W.2d 825"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "207 Ark. 830",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1481874
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/207/0830-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 S. W. 2d 28",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 Ark. 1121",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726598
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/177/1121-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 2028,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.91828002726348e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30937962020179555
    },
    "sha256": "8aa3b54ab55cc40770e5cd3cba85b4b9755f4475ab56c849b0a92331650bf3ba",
    "simhash": "1:8d023c5bfac3224f",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:24.085624+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pemberton v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nThe appeal is from a judgment finding the defendant guilty of rape and fixing his punishment at life in the penitentiary.\nThe details are too sordid and revolting to warrant extended comment. It is sufficient to say that there was substantial evidence to sustain the jury\u2019s verdict, challenged in the motion for a new trial.\nOther matters raised by the motion were: (a) The court erred in permitting the sheriff to select bystanders for service on the jury after the regular panel had been exhausted; Ark. Stat\u2019s, \u00a7 39-220. (b) Instructions 1 and 2 given at the State\u2019s request were erroneous; (c) the defendant\u2019s requested instructions Nos. 2, 5, and 6 should have been given.\nThe objection relating to selection of the jury is not properly before us. The record does not disclose the irregularities complained of, hence there is a presumption the law was followed. Certainly an objection was a prerequisite to this court\u2019s duty of review. Burrow v. State, 177 Ark. 1121, 7 S. W. 2d 28.\nThe defendant has not filed a brief, therefore his grounds for objecting to instructions given or refused must be deduced from the motion for a new trial. Again we are met with the defendant\u2019s failure to object to some of the instructions as given or as modified, and in making only a general objection in other instances. General objections reach only inherently erroneous matters.\nThe defendant sought to have the jury instructed that \u00e1 verdict of guilty would not be proper unless the assaulted female failed to resist or make an outcry through fear of death. As modified the instruction was that fear of great bodily harm was sufficient. Such an instruction has long been approved. Boyd v. State, 207 Ark. 830, 182 S. W. 2d 937.\nNo error brought to the court\u2019s attention by the record is disclosed and the judgment must be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ike Murry, Attorney General and George E. Lusk, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pemberton v. State.\n4701\n251 S. W. 2d 825\nOpinion delivered October 20, 1952.\nIke Murry, Attorney General and George E. Lusk, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0019-01",
  "first_page_order": 43,
  "last_page_order": 44
}