{
  "id": 1320328,
  "name": "Jones v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. State",
  "decision_date": "1891-04-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "371",
  "last_page": "372",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ark. 371"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "46 Mo., 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "case_ids": [
        8851624
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo/46/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ark., 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ark., 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1866119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/23/0156-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 2161,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.727,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.490878264467313e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4459978168611375
    },
    "sha256": "628dc5ffd2e4b508a938d7cb300fca9c3041c240fb626449fa94c18e6d9b568d",
    "simhash": "1:375805893cd8d4d9",
    "word_count": 383
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:43.544850+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jones v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cockrill, C. J.\nThe court charged the jury that where an offense is committed upon the boundary of two counties, or if it is uncertain where the boundary is, a conviction could be had in either county.\nThere was no proof that the offense was committed upon the boundary line of two counties, nor does the proof disclose that there was any uncertainty about the location of the boundary line. The uncertainty was as to the place where the offense was committed, and as to that alone. The charge was therefore misleading. The case is controlled by the decision in State v. Rhoda, 23 Ark., 156.\nReverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new-trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cockrill, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. H. Harding and Thos. B. Martin for appellant.",
      "W. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jones v. State.\nDecided April 4, 1891.\nCriminal law\u2014Venue\u2014County boundaries.\nAn instruction that, if an offense is committed upon the boundary of two counties, or if it is uncertain where the boundary is, a conviction may be had in either county is erroneous where there is no proof that the offense was committed upon the boundary of two counties, or that there was uncertainty about the location of the boundary, and where the only uncertainty was as to the place where the offense was committed.\nAPPEAL from Desha Circuit Court.\nJohn M. Elliott, Judge.\nAppeal from a conviction of the crime of marking another\u2019s hogs with intent to steal them. Defendant admitted that he marked the hogs \u201c back of the Bowles place.\u201d A witness testified that, as respects the land back of the Bowles place, \u201c part is in Desha county and part in Drew.\u201d The testimony fails to show in which county the crime was committed.\nSection 1972 Mansfield\u2019s Digest provides :\n\u201c Where the offense is committed on the boundary of two counties, or if it is uncertain where the boundary is, the indictment may be found and a trial had in'either county.\u201d\nC. H. Harding and Thos. B. Martin for appellant.\nThere was no proof that the marking was done in Desha county, but the venue, if proved, was shown to be in Drew county. 32 Ark., 180; 23 id., 158; 30 id., 43.\nW. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, for the State.\nSection 1972 is not unconstitutional. 46 Mo., 350.\nThe jury found the venue to be in Desha county. Cooley, Const. Lim., 392, top."
  },
  "file_name": "0371-01",
  "first_page_order": 397,
  "last_page_order": 398
}