{ "id": 8724178, "name": "Walker v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Walker v. State", "decision_date": "1888-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "532", "last_page": "534", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ark. 532" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "19 Mo., 674", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 315674 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/19/0674-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Ark., 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1887732 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/48/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ark., 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893413 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/44/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ark., 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727887 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/13/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Cal., 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2266274 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/39/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Tex., 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2129499 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tex/40/0134-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Neb., 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 4398010 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/11/0409-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ala., 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3096644 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala/42/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Mo., 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 993626 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/32/0558-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 327, "char_count": 4674, "ocr_confidence": 0.534, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.253128895807033e-07, "percentile": 0.8690566515654001 }, "sha256": "5993b56100a0ebdca2d87f3cc082945850501ddde0dce10f3ebd0102e9842e95", "simhash": "1:9431db236604530b", "word_count": 802 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:56:08.326499+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Walker v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Cockrill, C. J.\nThe sufficiency of the indictment is the:, only question presented by the record. Omitting the formal parts, the indictment charges that Walker, the appellant* \u201cfeloniously did steal, take and away\u201d one hog, the property of P. H. James, against the peace and dignity of the state.\nAfter conviction and sentence, the defendant moved to. arrest the judgment \u2014 upon what ground the record does not' disclose.\n1. There is no allegation of the value of the hog alleged to-^ave been stolen, but as hog stealing is a statutory felony, without regard to the value of the animal, no-allegation as to value is requred. Bish. on Stat. Cr., sec. 427; 2 Bish. Cr. Pr., sec. 713; 1 Ib., sec. 541; State v. Daniels, 32 Mo., 558; Sheppard v. State, 42 Ala., 531; Adams v. Com., 23 Grattan, 949; Wells v. State, 11 Neb., 409; Davis v. State, 40 Tex., 134; People v. Townsley, 39 Cal., 405.\nHouston v. State, 13 Ark., 66, is not in conflict with this rule. In that case the value of the animal was alleged in the indictment, and the court, without ruling that it was-or was not surplusage, held only that the value was in -fact proved on the-trial. Shepherd v. State, 44 Ark., 39 merely follows Houston v. State, supra.\nII. The formal allegation in an indictment for this should be that the defendant \u201cdid steal, take and drive (or carry) away\u201d the hog. The verb to be joined to and qualified by the adverb \u201caway,\u201d is omitted in this indictmet. That this is a clerical error is evident. If the omission Would not mislead a person of common understanding, it would not vitiate the indictment. 1 Bishop Cr. Pr., sec. 357. If it would not mislead, the accused would not be prejudiced by the omission. The rule prescribed by statute is that \u201cNo indictment is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings therein be affected by any defect which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits,\u201d Mansf. Dig., sec. 2107 ; and this court is prohibited from reversing a judgment of conviction for any but prejudicial errors. Ib., secs. 2454, 2468 ; State v. Ward, 48 Ark., 36.\nIn Green v. Commonwealth, 111 Mass., the indictment found in pursuance of a statute similar to ours, charged that the defendant \u201c did feloniously take and steal \u201d the articles mentioned, omitting the allegation of carrying away altogether ; but the court held that the omission was formal merely, the use of the word \u201csteal\u201d in the indictment, which was used in the statute, being sufficient for all practical purposes to prevent a misunderstanding of what was meant. Mr. Wharton thinks that is carrying the doctrine too far. Whart. Cr. Pl. & Pr., sec. 266 n. However that may be, it is- not necessary to go the length of that ruling to sustain this indictment, for here the intention to charge the asportation is evident, and any word that can be supplied to conform to the sense of the context, will complete the allegation of asportation. \u201cIf the sense be clear, nice exceptions ought not to be regarded,\u201d is language appropriate to the subject 'attributed.to Lord Ellenborough. (State v. Edwards, 19 Mo., 674); and even Sir Matthew Hale was of opinion that the great strictness demanded by the courts in indictments was \u201ca blemish and inconvenience in the law and the administration thereof.\u201d 2 Hale\u2019s Pleas of the Crown, 193. The remedy for this \u201cdisease of the law,\u201d as be termed it, has been applied by the legislature sufficiently to cure the infirmity of this indictment, whatever other necessity for extension of the remedy may be wanting.\nIf the reasons for sustaining the judgment needed strengthening, support is found in the fact that the record does not show that the formal defect now objected to was specifically assigned as error in the circuit court.\nThere is no error in the record for which the judgment should be reversed, and it is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Cockrill, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "The appellant pro se,", "D. W. Jones, Attorney General, for the state." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Walker v. State.\n1, Indictment: For hog stealing: Allegation of value not required.\nNo allegation of value is necessary in an indictment for stealing a hog, as such stealing is a statutory felony, without regard to the value of the animal. \u25a0\n2, Same: For larceny,,: Clerical error,:\nAn indictment which charges that the defendant \u201cfeloniously did steal, take and away one hog, etc.,\u201d is not had for the omission of the word \u201cdrive\u201d or \u201ccarry,\u201d before the* adverb \u201caway,\u201d-as the intention to charge the asportation of the hog is,evident, and. the omission would, not mislead a person of common understanding. \u2014 [Mansf. Dig,,, secs. 2107,2454, 2468.]\nAPPEAL from Conway Circuit Court.\nG-. S. CuNNinghaM, Circuit Judge-\nThe appellant pro se,\nD. W. Jones, Attorney General, for the state." }, "file_name": "0532-01", "first_page_order": 540, "last_page_order": 542 }