{ "id": 8718946, "name": "Larry James WRIGHT v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. State", "decision_date": "1967-10-16", "docket_number": "5299", "first_page": "221", "last_page": "226", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "243 Ark. 221" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "419 S.W.2d 320" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "193 S. W. 2d 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1475864, 1475774 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/209/0941-01", "/ark/209/0940-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ark. 941", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1475864 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/209/0941-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 Ark. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1684862 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/235/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 Ark. 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1609148 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/219/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S. W. 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 Ark. 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1589448 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/143/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 S. W. 788", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 Ark. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1592924 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/141/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 Ark. 727", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1730977 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/239/0727-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 S. W. 139", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 Ark. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1312211 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/100/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S. W. 927", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ark. 555", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1511779 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/91/0555-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 474, "char_count": 7250, "ocr_confidence": 0.577, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1238072675493662e-07, "percentile": 0.5741307697861922 }, "sha256": "2b39d7c4eefa6017acf4a6ef134e8501389bb4eefb43a2fea185173425f0ceaa", "simhash": "1:1bea534e56af9db8", "word_count": 1253 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:41.806727+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Larry James WRIGHT v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Paul Ward, Justice.\nLarry Wright, appellant was charged with the crime of committing rape on the night of January 24, 1967. He was tried and convicted on May 9, 1967, and sentenced to life imprisonment.\nThe victim identified appellant as the person who entered her bedroom about midnight and forced her to have intercourse with him. Appellant\u2019s defense consisted mainly of an alibi. He took the witness stand, and testified, in substance: He was at the home of his parents from about 10 p.m. on the night in question and remained there constantly until 7 or 8 o\u2019clock the next morning. He was corroborated by his parents, and, to some degree, by other witnesses.\nOn appeal, and for a reversal, appellant does not contend there was any lack of sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict of guilty. He does, however, contend the case should be reversed because of two alleged errors committed by the trial court, which alleged errors we presently examine.\nOne. The first contention by appellant is:\n\u201cThe trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after allowing the prosecution to improperly cross-examine the defendant by accusing defendant of specific acts of bad conduct and criminal conduct and attempting to impeach defendant\u2019s credibility.\u201d\nAnother point raised by appellant is closely related to the above and will not be discussed separately. It merely concludes that \u201cthe verdict of the jury was rendered ont of bias and prejudice against the defendant as a result of the improper cross-examination ...\u201d mentioned, above.\nOn cross-examination appellant was asked nine-questions by the prosecuting attorney relative to his alleged past conduct or behavior. The first question was:\nQ. \u201cI will ask you if Mr. Eoger Tucker on several occasions has requested that you quit hanging around his place of business because you make indecent proposals to women.\u201d\nAppellant objected on the ground that \u201cit has nothing to do with the proof of innocence in this case at all.\u201d Then the trial court stated:\n\u201c. . . you know this defendant has taken the stand. He is subject to the same rule and cross-examination as any other witness. These questions may be asked on the credibility of the witness.\u201d\nTo the above appellant again objected, and saved exceptions.\nSix or seven other questions of the same or similar import were propounded to appellant, all of which were denied by him. To one other question of this nature appellant answered that \u201cI used to hang around the Palace Laundry and they told me, the lady did, to stay away and I ain\u2019t been back there since\u201d.\nThere were several discussions between the court and the attorneys relative to the propriety of the question during which time appellant made proper objections. Then the court made this statement to the jury\n\u201cGentlemen, you understand these questions and. answers with respect to this line of questioning which has just been pursued, to which the defense has objected, is not to be considered by you as substantive proof of the offense for which he is being tried. It goes only to his credibility.\u201d\nA review of our decisions pertinent to matter here in question leads us to conclude the trial court\u2019s ruling ivas correct.\nIn support of his contention of error appellant cites cases of Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, 121 S. W. 927; Younger v. State, 100 Ark. 321, 140 S. W. 139, and; Henson v. State, 239 Ark. 727, 393 S. W. 2d 856. We think, however, these cases are not applicable to the situation here. In the Ware case the State offered testimony by witness as to other crimes committed by appellant after he had tried to prove his good character. In rejecting the State\u2019s testimony this Court also said:\n\u201cAs a witness in the cause, he could have been cross-examined ; and upon his cross-examination, like any other witness, he could have been asked as to specific acts for the purpose of discrediting his testimony as a witness.\u201d\nIn the Younger case (which was a rape case) the State again offered to prove appellant\u2019s bad character by its own witnesses, even though he had not attempted to prove his good character. In holding this was improper, we said:\n\u201cAppellant, however, having taken the witness stand in his own behalf, was subject to all the rules of examination and impeachment as any other witness. Therefore to test his credibility the State had the right on cross-examination to ask the witness if he had not been convicted of petit larceny, and if he had not been confined in the penitentiary.\u201d\nThe issue in the Henson case was very similar to that in the Ware case, and we held that after appellant had offered to prove his good character the State could not introduce witnesses to prove \u201cspecific instances of bad behavior as a matter of contradicting appellant\u2019s testimony\u201d.\nThere are numerous decisions by this Court holding, in effect, that when a defendant takes the witness stand (as he did here) he is subject to the same rules of evidence and impeachment as other witnesses on cross-examination to test his credibility. Jordan v. State, 141 Ark. 504, 217 S. W. 788; Kyles v. State, 143 Ark. 419, 220 S. W. 458; Hays v. State, 219 Ark. 301, 241 S. W. 2d 266, and; Edens v. State, 235 Ark. 178, 359 S. W. 2d 432.\nTwo. It is here contended that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to discharge the jury and empanel a new jury. The issue arose in the manner described below.\nWhile the jurors were being questioned for qualification the trial court asked them if anyone knew anything about the facts of the case or if they had heard anything about it. Thereupon John Candler (a member of the panel) stated: \u201cThis incident occurred in rent property owned by myself and my wife.\u201d Appellant moved for a mistrial, and it was denied by the court. An objectioii was made by appellant, and exceptions saved.\nA review of the record convinces us the court committed no reversible error. In response to further questioning by the court Candler made it clear that he had talked with no one who purported to know the facts; that, if accepted, he would not be influenced either way as to guilt or innocence of the defendant; that he didn\u2019t know appellant or the prosecuting witness, and had never seen either before the morning of the trial; that he only heard that an \u201calleged incident did happen\u201d\nAppellant also made a motion to strike Candler for cause, and this motion was granted.\nWe think the trial court, under the state of the record here, did not abuse hi$ discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial. In the case of Briley v. White, 209 Ark. 941, 193 S. W. 2d 326, this Court refused to grant a mistrial. In sustaining the trial court we used this language:\n\u201cMuch latitude must be given to the trial court in handling matters of this kind, and, in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion or a manifest prejudice to the rights of the complaining party, this court will not reverse a judgment on account of the action of the trial court\u201d. (Citing numerous cases in support.)\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Paul Ward, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. Sam Wood and Martin Green, for appellant.", "Joe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Larry James WRIGHT v. STATE of Arkansas\n5299\n419 S. W. 2d 320\nOpinion delivered October 16, 1967\n[Rehearing denied November 6, 1967.]\nJ. Sam Wood and Martin Green, for appellant.\nJoe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0221-01", "first_page_order": 243, "last_page_order": 248 }