{ "id": 1509537, "name": "Hughes v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Hughes v. State", "decision_date": "1902-05-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "420", "last_page": "423", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "70 Ark. 420" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "51 Ark. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721339 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/51/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 Ark. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882893 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/29/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1329159 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/58/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ark. 706", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "60 Pac. 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "60 S. W. 669", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "60 Pac. 112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 So. 110", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 S. E. 691", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "59 N. E. 508", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "60 Ark. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1903687 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/60/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ark. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1873887 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/35/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ark. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1903653 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/60/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320417 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ark. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721089 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/51/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ark. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1905697 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/62/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ark. 688", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728456 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/13/0688-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ark. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1322214 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/55/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ark. 609", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1877170 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/32/0609-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Ark. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726361, 8726379 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/5/0072-01", "/ark/5/0072-02" ] }, { "cite": "53 Ark. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1911638 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/53/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ark. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1309748 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/49/0381-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 371, "char_count": 5828, "ocr_confidence": 0.504, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.318696866303839e-07, "percentile": 0.7897421818801019 }, "sha256": "a613b544143fad4224afc5b75d52acfde54d3bf2231062e70587208a0f289bb6", "simhash": "1:583505303980cda9", "word_count": 1035 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:54:44.617258+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Hughes v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hughes, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) The court is of the opinion that the court was in error in interfering with the cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, and in saying, m the course of her examination before the jury, that she had not said she was unconscious, when the record shows plainly that she had said she was unconscious. The court, even though he might have been mistaken as to what the witness had said in this behalf, should not have thus interfered in the cross-examination, and stated positively that she had not said she was unconscious. This was a question of fact, which the jury should have settled. The action of the court was prejudicial error, for which the judgment must be reversed.\nWe think, also, that the question to the prosecuting witness, \u201cWere you ever at the levee camp at all?\u201d and the question, \u201cDid you ever go over to the levee camp, and sit around there with the negroes?\u201d were proper, and should have been allowed. If she had answered in the affirmative, the answer would have had some tendency to affect her reputation for truth and morality, and thus her credibility. The cross-examination is a means of sifting the testimony of a witness, and is especially important to a defendant in a case of this kind. It should not be interfered with or denied, unless in a clear case of abuse of the right.\n\u201cThe court shall exercise a reasonable control over the mode of interrogation, so as to make it rapid, distinct, as little annoying to the witness, and as effective for the extraction of the truth as may be, but, subject to this control, the parties may put such legal and pertinent questions as they may see fit. The court, however, may stop the production of further evidence on a particular point when the evidence on it is already so full as to preclude reasonable doubt.\u201d Section 2955, Sand. & H. Dig.; L. R. Junction Ry v. Woodruff, 49 Ark. 381.\n\u201cLimiting the time for the examination of witnesses, the number of witnesses to a given point, stopping repetitions and irrelevant examinations, are matters necessarily confided to a trial judge. Business could not well be dispatched without it. Thompson, Trials, \u00a7\u00a7 352, 353. It is only when the complaining party shows that this discretion has been abused that we interfere.\u201d Jones v. Glidewell, 53 Ark. 178. We think the discretion of the court did not extend so far as the court went in this case.\nReversed and remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hughes, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant pro se.", "George W. Murpliy, Attorney General, for state." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Hughes v. State.\nOpinion delivered May 10, 1902.\n1. Witness \u2014 Interruption of Cross-Examination. \u2014 Where the prosecutrix in a rape case testified that she became unconscious during the commission of the offense, and was asked on cross-examination how she knew what happened while she was unconscious,, it was error for the court to state that the witness did not say that she was unconscious, or to stop the examination of the witness on that particular point. (Page 422.)\n2. Same \u2014 Questions Affecting Credibility. \u2014 It was error for the court to refuse to permit the prosecutrix in a rape case, a white, woman, to be asked, \u201cDid you ever go over to the levee camp, and sit around there with the negroes?\u201d and \u201cWere you ever at the levee camp at all?\u201d as affirmative answers would have some tendency to affect her credibility. (Page 422.)\nAppeal from Mississippi Circuit Court.\nFelix G. Taylor, Judge.\nReversed.\nSTATEMENT by the court.\nThe appellant was indicted and tried far, and convicted of, the crime of rape, and was sentenced to be hung, in Mississippi circuit court in this state, and appealed to this court. The appellant was a negro boy, between 14 and 18 years of age. The prosecutrix (the injured party) was a white woman named Edna Dean. She testified that the appellee threw her down, dragged her out of the road, and raped her forcibly and against her will. On cross-examination she was asked by counsel for defendant: \u201cDid you become unconscious at any time during the proceeding.\u201d She answered; \u201cYes, sir; I suppose I did.\u201d \u201cYou became unconscious.\u201d Answer \u201cYes, sir.\u201d Question. \u201cAbout the time he choked you.\u201d Answer. \u201cYes, sir; I suppose I was.\u201d Question. \u201cHow long after he left you before you became conscious again ?\u201d Answer. \u201cHe was gone. I don\u2019t know how long he had been gone.\u201d Question. \u201cIf you became unconscious soon after he threw you down, and you don\u2019t know when he beat and bruised you, nor when he left you, how do you know just what happened while you were unconscious?\u201d By the court: \u201c\"Wait a minute. She did not say she was unconscious.\u201d Defendant\u2019s counsel: \u201cWe object to the court stating to the jury what the witness has or has not said. We submit what the witness did say, not only that she was unconscious, but that she did not know when defendant beat and bruised her, nor how long he had been gone from her when she again became conscious.\u201d The court: \u201cWhat I mean is that you have gone far enough on that matter. Proceed with the examination in a proper manner.\u201d Exceptions were saved to the remarks of the court. Answer. \u201cI knew something that went on, but I couldn\u2019t scream.\u201d The witness was also asked: \u201cDid you ever go over to the levee camp, and sit around there with the negroes?\u201d Objected to; objection sustained, and exceptions saved. \u201cWere you ever at the levee at all?\u201d (Objection sustained, and exceptions saved.)\nAppellant pro se.\nThe allegations and proof must correspond. 5 Ark. 72; 32 Ark. 609; 55 Ark. 244, 389; 13 Ark. 688; 62 Ark. 459. The remarks of the court were improper. 51 Ark. 147; 54 Ark. 489; 60 Ark. 76; 35 Ark. 458; 60 Ark. 425; 59 N. E. 508; 29 S. E. 691; 29 So. 110; 60 Pac. 112; 60 S. W. 669; 60 Pac. 403; 13 Ark. 706; 58 Ark. 556; 29 Ark. 248; 54 Ark. 257; 51 Ark. 177.\nGeorge W. Murpliy, Attorney General, for state.\nThere was no error in the exclusion or admission of evidence. 1 Greenl. Ev. (15th Ed.) \u00a7 54." }, "file_name": "0420-01", "first_page_order": 436, "last_page_order": 439 }