{
  "id": 1705432,
  "name": "Trimble & Williams v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Trimble & Williams v. State",
  "decision_date": "1957-05-20",
  "docket_number": "4871",
  "first_page": "867",
  "last_page": "869",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "227 Ark. 867"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "302 S.W.2d 83"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "140 A. L. R. 176",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 A. L. R. 910",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S. W. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ark. 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1347018
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/105/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 857",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 S. W. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ark. 451",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1517108
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/88/0451-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 S. W. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ark. 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1352043
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/103/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S. W. 983",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ark. 271",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1497268
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/78/0271-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S. W. 2d 785",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 Ark. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722370
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/194/0521-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 3661,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0349211390366834e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8548712685565838
    },
    "sha256": "427e911731ef8ca2f9dc244ef3b8a62d332c660d23a2838d061247b9e7cce13c",
    "simhash": "1:964eada15dacede8",
    "word_count": 620
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:25.767944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Trimble & Williams v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Minor W. Millwee, Associate Justice.\n.The appellants, Warren \u201cSon\u201d'Trimble and Bobby Dale Williams, were convicted of the crime of robbery by forcibly taking and stealing an automobile from K. C. Parker on March 3, 1956.\nAt the trial K. C. Parker testified he was asleep in his car which was parked at a cafe about. 1 :.30 A.M. when appellants attacked him, demanded his money, and drove his car. to. the airport where he escaped and notified the police. He also' testified that,, acting upon information he gave the police, appellants- were arrested about three days later and placed in the county jail where he identified them as the parties who robbed him.\nThe only other witness for the .State was a deputy sheriff who was permitted to testify, over appellants\u2019 objections and exceptions, that he was present when K. C. Parker came to the county jail and made a \u201clineup\u201d identification of the appellants as the parties who had robbed him. The sole issue is the admissibility of this testimony.\nThe authorities are divided as to the competency o\\ evidence of so-called \u201cextrajudicial identification\u201d in a trial where the accused\u2019s identity as the guilty party is in dispute. Most courts subscribe to the proposition that the prior consistent statements of a witness who has not been impeached are not admissible in evidence Tor the purpose of corroborating or bolstering his testimony. We are committed to the view that evidence of extra judicial identification is incompetent as either substantive or corroborative evidence if there has been no impeachment of the prosecuting witness or his testimony.\nIn Gill v. State, 194 Ark. 521, 108 S. W. 2d 785, we said: \u201cThis character of evidence is referred to in the law books as extrajudicial identification and, according to the weight of authority, is not admissible even though the identifying witness or witnesses had been impeached by any method known for impeaching witnesses. Burks v. State, 78 Ark. 271, 93 S. W. 983, 8 Ann. Cas. 476. There, is no authority whatever for admitting an extrajudicial identification as original evidence of guilt. This court said in the case of Warren v. State, 103 Ark. 165, 146 S. W. 477, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 698, that: \u2018But nowhere, so far as we can ascertain, has it ever been held that a so-called extrajudicial identification is admissible as original evidence; and it was, therefore, in any view of the case, inadmissible for there was no attempt to impeach the witness by contradictory statements or otherwise. The testimony was introduced as original evidence, .and it. was clearly inadmissible, for it was hot competent to corroborate the identifying witness by proof of former identification\u2019.\u201d As Judge McCulloch said in Burks v. State, supra: \u201cAfter all, the effect of proof of previous consistent statements could only be to corroborate the statement of the witness under oath by his own words uttered on another occasion. It would add nothing to his statement upon the witness stand, either as to his testimony on the main issue, or as to his denial of the contradiction.\u201d See also, Rogers v. State, 88 Ark. 451, 115 S. W. 156, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 857; Birones v. State, 105 Ark. 82, 150 S. W. 416; and cases collected in annotations in 70 A. L. R. 910 and 140 A. L. R. 176.\nAdmission of the testimony of the deputy sheriff resulted in prejudicial error. The judgment is accordingly reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Minor W. Millwee, Associate Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles L. Carpenter and Terral & Rawlings, for appellant.",
      "\u25a0 Bruce Bennett, Atty. General, and Russell Morton, Ass\u2019t. Atty. General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Trimble & Williams v. State.\n4871\n302 S. W. 2d 83\nOpinion delivered May 20, 1957.\nCharles L. Carpenter and Terral & Rawlings, for appellant.\n\u25a0 Bruce Bennett, Atty. General, and Russell Morton, Ass\u2019t. Atty. General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0867-01",
  "first_page_order": 891,
  "last_page_order": 893
}