{
  "id": 8717821,
  "name": "Augustus Ray STUDDARD v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Studdard v. State",
  "decision_date": "1967-09-25",
  "docket_number": "5297",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "77",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 Ark. 73"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "419 S.W.2d 134"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "211 Ark. 1014",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1473210
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/211/1014-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 Ark. 881",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724975
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/210/0881-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 S. W. 604",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ark. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1318884
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/97/0156-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 366,
    "char_count": 5198,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.16754760047224e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3250407649249049
    },
    "sha256": "403ba17f896dc065194bca667ed48af7b3d0fea1318edaa6fee4b8c35f29c03f",
    "simhash": "1:9b6ca192d30c29d5",
    "word_count": 946
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:41.806727+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Augustus Ray STUDDARD v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Paul Ward, Justice.\nAppellant, Augustus Ray Studdard, was charged with grand larceny for stealing a Ford pickup truck on December 4, 1966. By agreement, a jury was waived and the case was tried before the presiding judge. Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to serve five years in the State Penitentiary\u2014 the last two years being suspended with certain contingencies.\nIt is not disputed that the truck was taken from its owner, in Hot Springs, in the late afternoon of the 4th and that it was found (almost a complete wreck) near the main highway near Mt. Ida at about midnight of the same day.\nIn general terms, we here set out briefly below the opposing versions of appellant and the State.\nAppellant, who testified at the trial, contends: he met some boys in Hot Springs about seven p.m. on the 4th who said- they were headed for Fort Smith; he decided to go with the boys 'because six boys were after him and he wanted to get out of town, and also because he wanted to see a girl friend; when they went to \u00bfhe car (being driven by the boys) he saw a pickup truck attached to the rear end; on the way to Ft. Smith the boys told him the truck was \u201chot\u201d; just before they reached Mt. Ida the truck broke loose from the car and ran off the road; then he told the boys he didn\u2019t want to get into trouble, and that he was going^hack to Hot Springs, and; he returned in a car driven by Jerry White at his invitation.\nThe State, in essence, contends: appellant\u2019s story about the taking and wrecking of the truck is not true; appellant\u2019s own statement to others shows that he took the truck, and; that he was driving it at the time it was wrecked.\nOn appeal appellant\u2019s only contention for a reversal is that the testimony \u201cis not sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. . .\u201d\nFor reasons hereafter set out, we are unable to agree with appellant\u2019s contention.\nAppellant takes the position that he was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence, citing (among other cases) Reed v. State, 97 Ark. 156, 133 S. W. 604; Johnson v. State, 210 Ark. 881, 197 S. W. 2d 936, and; Taylor v. State, 211 Ark. 1014, 204 S. W. 2d 379. In all these cases the convictions were reversed, there being only circumstantial evidence to support the convictions. We agree that, in such cases, the evidence must be strong and convincing \u2014 as was well stated in the Taylor case, supra, where we find this statement:\n\u201cThis demands that, in a case depending upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must be so connected and cogent as to show guilt to a moral certainty and must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. \u2019 \u2019\nAlthough, in the case under consideration here, no one saw appellant actually take the truck, we think there is more than circumstantial evidence to support the conviction \u2014 as presently pointed out.\n(a) Appellant does not deny that he rode back to Hot Springs with Jerry White: White testified as follows :\nQ. \u201cWould you tell the court what he had to say?\nA. \u201cWell, right after we picked him up he said that he was the driver of the truck and he said he didn\u2019t want to say anything until he got to know us a little hit but being\u2019 we was so nice to him he was going to tell us, he said he thought we ought to know.\nQ. \u201cYou mean he told you he was the driver of the truck there that had been wrecked?\nA. \u201cYes, sir.\u201d\nAgain, White testified:\nQ. \u201cAnd he explained to you that after these six boys got after him he had time to go steal a truck, is that right?\nA. \u201cIf I recollect right he said he had to find a way to get away from them. These boys was wanting to fight him or something there and he was trying- \u2014 I didn\u2019t ask him all the details because I didn\u2019t figure it was none of my business.\u201d\nAppellant, at the time he was arrested by an officer on his return to Hot Springs, admitted that he picked up the truck \u201cand wrecked it\u201d.\nAlthough this case was tried before the trial court, by agreement, still we must view the sufficiency of the evidence as though it was tried before a jury.\nAppellant stresses the fact that, as was admitted by the trial court, there were discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of some of the State\u2019s witnesses-\u2014 such as: White could not remember whether appellant was with, him when he went from the wreck back to Mt. Ida before returning to Hot Springs; \"White\u2019s story-differed as to just where he picked up appellant; White was not sure whether the truck was a Gr.M.C. or a Chevrolet; the witnesses did not agree as to the extent of damages to the truck, and; appellant denied he told White he was the driver of the truck when it was wrecked. It is also shown that appellant made contradictory statements as to how he got back to Hot Springs.\nIn any event, these contradictions in the testimony posed questions of fact for the trial judge (sitting as a jury) to resolve. In our opinion the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Paul Ward, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul K. Roberts, for appellant.",
      "Joe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Augustus Ray STUDDARD v. STATE of Arkansas\n5297\n419 S. W. 2d 134\nOpinion delivered September 25, 1967\n[Rehearing- denied October 30, 1967.]\nPaul K. Roberts, for appellant.\nJoe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-01",
  "first_page_order": 95,
  "last_page_order": 99
}