{ "id": 1650351, "name": "Hawkins v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Hawkins v. State", "decision_date": "1954-04-19", "docket_number": "4768", "first_page": "519", "last_page": "524", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "223 Ark. 519" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "267 S.W.2d 1" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "209 Ark. 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1475793 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/209/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S. W. 684", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 Ark. 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1314523 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/99/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 Ark. 755", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1660005 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/220/0755-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S. W. 409", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ark. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721134 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/119/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Ark. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1881110 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/30/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 Ark. 934", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1449937 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/202/0934-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 Ark. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1656516 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/221/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 Ark. 652", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1467084 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/213/0652-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 475, "char_count": 7736, "ocr_confidence": 0.498, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.881498479151588e-08, "percentile": 0.5349626561239671 }, "sha256": "c7cb6ecaedd77a4c03c54a47ea910d5e6751952ade364c18203f058ad9c3e17b", "simhash": "1:a47f8e27bd4ef7db", "word_count": 1353 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:33.600099+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Hawkins v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "J. Seaborn Holt, J.\nA jury convicted appellant of the crime of carnal abuse under \u00a7 41-3406, Ark. Stats. 1947, which provides: \u201cEvery person convicted of carnally knowing, or abusing unlawfully, any female person under the age of sixteen (16) years, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary for a period of not less than one (1) year nor more than twenty-one (21) years.\u201d His punishment was fixed at a term of three (3) years in the State Penitentiary, and from the judgment is this appeal.\n_(1)-\nFor reversal, appellant first contends that the evidence was not sufficient to convict. We do not agree. The prosecuting witness, appellant\u2019s daughter, became sixteen years of age April 3, 1953. The present charge was filed April 6, 1953. She testified positively that her father had been having intercourse with her since she was nine years of age, and for the past seven years. A physician testified that he examined this little girl, and, in his opinion, she had had sexual intercourse. It was not necessaiy for a conviction that her testimony be corroborated, since appellant could be convicted on her testimony alone. Glade v. State, 213 Ark. 652, 212 S. W. 2d 20 and Willis v. State, 221 Ark. 162, 252 S. W. 2d 618. Appellant stoutly denied the truth of her statements and thus was made a question of fact for the jury. Waterman v. State, 202 Ark. 934, 154 S. W. 2d 813.\n-(2)-\nAppellant next argues that the State failed to prove that the act (or acts) had been committed within the three years next before the information was filed. The prosecuting witness testified: \u201cHow long had this been going on? A. Ever since I was nine years old. Q. How many years had that been? A. About seven years.\u201d She further testified: \u201cQ. Just tell this jury now what happened on or about January 18, 1953, where you all had been, your mother, and sisters, where you wanted to go, what preparation you made, and what took place, if anything, between you and your father. A. I don\u2019t know if I remember that exact date or not, but I think it was the night I and my brothers and sisters went to my cousin\u2019s house to stay all night. My father was drunk that night and he came there to get us to go to the show and I went back by the house to change my blouse and he came back in there and had sexual intercourse with me.\u201d This evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the act of intercourse occurred within the three-year period prior to filing the information.\n\u2014(3)\u2014\nAppellant also questions the jurisdiction of the court to try the case on the charge of carnal abuse, contending that it is undisputed that appellant is the father of the prosecuting witness and that the alleged crime was that of incest (\u00a7 41-811, Ark. Stats. 1947) and not carnal abuse. We do not agree. In a fact situation, in effect, the same as here, we recently held in Willis v. State, above, that a father might be convicted of carnal abuse where the victim of his lust was his own daughter. The above \u00a7 41-3406 makes no distinction as to consanguinity, but makes it a crime to carnally know or abuse \u00a3 \u2018 any female person\u201d under the age of sixteen years.\n-(4)-\nNext appellant says that the court erred in excluding the testimony of Preston Hawkins, appellant\u2019s twelve-year-old son, to the effect that his mother\u2019s sister, Mrs. Miller, had told him and appellant\u2019s other children to \u201c \u2018swear anything even to lies, against their daddy to send him to the penitentiary, and if they did not do so, he and the other children would be sent to the Reform School,\u2019 for the reason that said testimony was a part of a scheme and plan to get rid of the defendant so that their mother and entire family of children conld get on the welfare, * * *\u201d and that \u201cthis conspiracy was relevant to the ultimate question of whether the jury would believe prosecuting witness, or not.\u201d\nThe record reflects that the prosecuting witness was never asked directly or, in effect, the above question propounded to Preston, \u2014 that is, \u2014 whether Mrs. Miller had told appellant\u2019s children to \u201cswear anything even to lies,\u201d against their father. No foundation was laid for this testimony which was intended to impeach the prosecuting witness. The fact that Mrs. Miller, a third party, might have been prejudiced against appellant could not be shown for the purpose of impeaching the prosecuting witness. \u201cA witness cannot be impeached by evidence tending to show that a third person was prejudiced against the accused,\u201d Benton v. State, 30 Ark. 328, (Headnote 4). We therefore find no merit to this contention.\n\u2014(5)\u2014\nError was also alleged in the court\u2019s refusal, upon objection by the State, to allow the appellant to answer the following question: \u201cThurman, I will ask you, do you know or have you knowledge of any threats being made to you or members of your family by the Welfare Department or bj^ Mrs. Miller?\u201d The record shows exceptions saved by appellant to the court\u2019s ruling, but appellant made no offer to show what appellant would have said had he been permitted to answer. We have nothing on which to base error on the ruling of the court. Baldwin, v. State, 119 Ark. 518, 178 S. W. 409 and Wooten v. State, 220 Ark. 755, 249 S. W. 2d 968.\n\u2014(6)\u2014\nAppellant says error was committed by the court in refusing to allow John Hawkins to answer the following question: \u201cHas any of the Hawkins\u2019 family ever been charged with a felony?\u201d The record shows the following testimony for appellant by witness, Hawkins, on direct examination: \u201cQ. Mr. Hawkins, has Tbnrman ever been arrested to your knowledge, charged with a felony before this case? A. No, sir. Q. Has any of the Hawkins\u2019 family ever been charged with a felony? Mr. Gutensohn: I object. The Court: Objection sustained.\u201d Again appellant made no offer to show what witness would have said had he been allowed to answer. What we said in paragraph \u25a0 \u2014 (5)-\u2014, above, applies with equal force here.\n\u2014(7)\u2014\nFinally, it is argued that: \u201cThe court erred in sustaining an objection by the State to the testimony of Mr. Charles Evans to the effect that about three years ago, while he lived near the defendant\u2019s home, he saw Johnnie Lou Hawkins and Wanda Faye Hawkins, daughters of the defendant and prosecuting witnesses, slip away from their home after dark, come by his house, enter cars with boys in them, and leave, as this was an impeachment of the witnesses, the foundation having first been laid by asking said witnesses if such were true, to which they replied \u2018no\u2019.\u201d\nIt appears that on cross examination by appellant\u2019s counsel, the prosecuting witness and a younger sister both denied having slipped away from home at night to go out with boys and appellant sought to contradict this testimony by Evans\u2019 evidence. The court properly refused Evans\u2019 testimony, in the circumstances. While a witness may be questioned as to certain specific acts for impeachment purposes, however, if such matters are collateral to the issue, as here, such witness may not subsequently be contradicted by a witness of the party (appellant here) putting the question. The examiner is bound by the answer given. McAlister v. State, 99 Ark. 604, 139 S. W. 684, and Bevis v. State, 209 Ark. 624, 192 S. W. 2d 113.\nIn the McAlister case, we held: \u201cWhile it is proper to permit a witness to be asked as to specific acts affecting his credibility, yet if such matters are collateral to the issue, he can not, as to his answer, he subsequently contradicted by the party putting the question.\u201d (Headnote 2).\nFinding no error, the judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "J. Seaborn Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Bates & Bates and John E. Karris, for appellant.", "Tom Gentry, Attorney General, Thorp Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Hawkins v. State.\n4768\n267 S. W. 2d 1\nOpinion delivered April 19, 1954.\nBates & Bates and John E. Karris, for appellant.\nTom Gentry, Attorney General, Thorp Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0519-01", "first_page_order": 541, "last_page_order": 546 }