{
  "id": 1870943,
  "name": "Barbour v. The State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barbour v. State",
  "decision_date": "1881-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "61",
  "last_page": "63",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ark. 61"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "19 Ark., 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725477
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/19/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ark., 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ohio, 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "306"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Ark., 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726745
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/22/0354-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ark., 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875610
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/34/0257-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 4399,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.433749605722297e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5167536794616211
    },
    "sha256": "c44ec5c7822987c6e4b8b156405d193571e9750420c9d8bd7a46100dab2616d1",
    "simhash": "1:8bc8766c9fe68b3d",
    "word_count": 751
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:17.182005+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Barbour v. The State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "English, C. J.\nFlournoy Barbour, the plaintiff in error* loosely indicted as F. Barbour, was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, tried by a jury, found guilty of murder in the second degree, as charged, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for eighteen years. A new trial was refused him, but the Court, of its own motion, reduced the time of imprisonment to nine years, and sentenced him for that period.\nPassing over the points made and argued by his counsel here, in which there is nothing novel, there is a fault appearing of record, which we cannot overlook in a case involving liberty, and which is fatal to the judgment.\nAt the September term, 1880, of the Circuit Court of Desha county, the following record entry appears to have been made in this case :\n\u201cOn this day comes the State, etc., and comes the defendant in custody, etc., and by his counsel, and being arraigned, entered his plea of not guilty to the charge in the indictment herein, and both parties announcing themselves ready for trial, it is ordered that a jury come; whereupon come J. T. Truvalt,\u201d etc. [eleven others being named], \u201ctwelve good and lawful jurors, of the body of Desha county, who were selected from the regular panel, in accordance with law, to try this cause, and the jury, after receiving the admonition of the Court, are allowed to separate-until to-morrow morning at 9 o\u2019clock.\u201d\nOn the next day the following entry appears :\n\u201cOn this day comes the State, etc., and comes the defendant in custody, etc., etc., and also comes the jury heretofore empannelled, and all being present, this cause proceeds ; and after hearing the evidence adduced, arguments of counsel, and having received the instructions \u2022 of the Court as to the law, the jury retired to consider their verdict,\u201d etc.\nThere is nothing in either of these entries, or any other-entry appearing in the transcript, to show that the jurors-were sworn.\nThe oath administered to the panel of twenty-four petit jurors, selected for a term of the Court, binds them in all civil cases tried by jury taken from such panel during the term. Gantt\u2019s Digest, sec. 3696-7, But in a felony case,, like this, though the trial jurors be taken from the term panel, they must be specially sworn, as required by Sec.. 1921 of the Digest. See also, Sec. 1898.\nThe record should show that the jurors were sworn. See Anderson v. State, 34 Ark., 257, and cases cited.\nBeversed and remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "English, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. A. Pindall, for appellant:",
      "O. B. Moore, Attorney-General:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Barbour v. The State.\n1. Criminal Practice : Swearing \u00a1\u00a1wry.\nWhere the record fails to'show that the trial jury in a felony case were sworn in that case, a judgment of conviction will be reversed.\nEEEOE to Desha Circuit-Court.\nHon. J. M. Pinnell, Special Judge.\nL. A. Pindall, for appellant:\nObjected that he was indicted by the initial \u201cF.\u201d Barbour alone, his name of Flournoy Barbour being well known.\nAlso, that the Court below permitted the State to prove that defendant had left the. State.\nAlso, to admission of proof of his confessions, in that they were drawn from him by direct questions, while under arrest, without due warning that it would be used against him.\nAlso, to exclusion of evidence of threats made by deceased \u25a0against defendant. They were admissible to show the condition of feeling on the part of deceased, from which the jury might be assisted in inferring the facts connected with the transaction. Pitman v. State, 22 Ark., 354, 357 ; Pal-more v. State, 29 lb., 249; Stewart v. State, 19 Ohio, 302, 306.\nDefendant should have been allowed to prove .that he had been told of the threats, to show that he had heard them.\nInstructions given and refused, were argued without citations of authority.\nO. B. Moore, Attorney-General:\nIt is too late here, after pleading to the indictment, to make the first objection to the use of the initial. There was neither a wrong name, nor error in the name, nor was it wrong to allow the State to show that defendant fled the State, after being admitted to bail.\nThe confessions were freely made and competent. Austin v. State, 14 Ark., 556 ; Meyer v. State, 19 Ark., 156.\nUncommunicated threats were properly excluded. Defendant\u2019s declarations that he had been told of the threats-were heresay evidence.\nThe burden, after proof of killing, devolved on defend- and to show mitigating circumstances. Gantt\u2019s Digest, sec. 1252.\nThe instructions and verdict, on the whole, were right."
  },
  "file_name": "0061-01",
  "first_page_order": 59,
  "last_page_order": 61
}