{
  "id": 1873828,
  "name": "Toliver vs. The State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Toliver v. State",
  "decision_date": "1880-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "395",
  "last_page": "396",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ark. 395"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 2045,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2047685572429028e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7755741744016736
    },
    "sha256": "18d1bbc0d2450dc2bff92a33f6a86832b7da2004b21750c1aaea731209cac9fc",
    "simhash": "1:af90864653b01a0c",
    "word_count": 342
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:23:57.212153+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Toliver vs. The State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Harrison, J.\nThe appellant, Henry Toliver, was indicted for burglary and also grand larceny, and both offenses were charged in the same indictment.\nHe was convicted of both, and his punishment was assessed by the jury for the burglary, at three, and for the larceny, at two years\u2019 imprisonment in the penitentiary.\nPie moved in arrest of judgment because the two offenses were charged in the same indictment, and the verdict was for cumulative periods of imprisonment. The court over\u25a0ruled the motion, and he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict, the latter period of imprisonment to commence on the termination of the former.\nBurglary and grand larceny, if the one was connected with the other, may be charged in one indictment. Gantt\u2019s Dig., secs. 1349, 1351; Dodd v. The State, 33 Ark.\nThe statute expressly provides for cumulative periods of imprisonment.\nSection 1990 Gantt\u2019s Digest, is as follows:\n\u201cIf the defendant be convicted of two or more offenses, the punishment of each of which is confinement, the judgment shall be so rendered that the punishment in one case shall commence after the termination of it in the other.\u201d Dodd v. The State, supra; Bish. Crim. Law, sec. 953.\n~We find in the transcript what purports to be a bill of exceptions in the case, but which does not appear to have been filed or in any way made part of the record. \"We can not, therefore, notice it.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Harrison, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harrison, for appellant.",
      "Henderson, Attorney G-eneral, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Toliver vs. The State.\n1. Criminal Pleading : Burglary and Larceny: Indictment: Cumulative punishment.\nBurglary and grand larceny, where the one is connected with the other, may be joined in one indictment; and, upon conviction for both, cumulative punishments may be assessed \u2014 the second commencing at the termination of the first.\n2. Bill oe Exceptions: Must he made part of record.\nUnless a bill .of exceptions appears to have been filed and made part of the record, it can not be noticed.\nAPPEAL from Yell Circuit Court.\nPi\u00f3n. ~W. D. Jacoway, Circuit Judge.\nHarrison, for appellant.\nHenderson, Attorney G-eneral, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0395-01",
  "first_page_order": 393,
  "last_page_order": 394
}