{
  "id": 1509438,
  "name": "Levy v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Levy v. State",
  "decision_date": "1902-05-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "610",
  "last_page": "611",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ark. 610"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "65 Ark. 559",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        609307
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/65/0559-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 L. R. A. 751",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ark. 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 L. R. A. 535",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 S. W. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Am. Dec. 97",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ark. 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Mich. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719368
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/51/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ark. 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2027,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9922228597691665e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7419320585871995
    },
    "sha256": "44a66d688457946bf42ac76c707692ab3397a0d52e3c8a5f8b587b834a1b013e",
    "simhash": "1:b6f3919ce5889dd9",
    "word_count": 366
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:54:44.617258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Levy v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nThe court erred in allowing appellant to be examined on cross-examination as to the difficulty he had with a man in Prescott, and this testimony was prejudicial. The uneontroverted proof shows that appellant was at least guilty of murder in the second degree. The cause will be remanded to the circuit court with directions to sentence for murder in second degree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J.-O. A. Bush, for appellant.",
      "George W. Murphy, Attorney General, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Levy v. State.\nOpinion delivered May 10, 1902.\nMurder \u2014 Proof of Unconnected Crime. \u2014 While it is error to permit a defendant accused of murder to be cross-examined as to a difficulty be bad with another man, yet, if the uncontroverted proof shows that he was at least guilty of murder in the' second degree, a conviction of murder in the, first degree will be set aside,' and the cause remanded with instructions to sentence for murder in the second degree.\nAppeal from Nevada Circuit Court.\nJoe.D. Conway, Judge.\nReversed.\nChess Levy was convicted of murder in the first degree for the killing of one \u00edl. C. Cox in Nevada county. On cross-examination he was asked if he didn\u2019t shoot or cut another man in Nevada county, and replied, \u201cNo, sir; I got shot.\u201d Question: \u201cWhom did you have the difficulty with?\u201d Answer: \u201cI don\u2019t know who it was.\u201d Question: \u201cDidn\u2019t you cut him?\u201d Answer: \u201cNo, sir.\u201d Question: \u201cWhat did you do?\u201d Answer: \u201cI didn\u2019t do nothing but strike him with my fist.\u201d This testimony was excepted to by defendant, who has appealed.\nJ.-O. A. Bush, for appellant.\nThe eighth instruction asked by the state should not have been given. 36 Ark. 133; 51 Mich. 199; 1 McClain,' Cr. Law, \u00a7 328. There is no evidence to support the ninth instruction, and the evidence does not sustain the verdict. 53 Ark. 518; 2 Bish. Cr. Law, \u00a7 652; Sand. & H. Dig., 1967-8, 1972-3, 5257; 55 Am. Dec. 97; 1 McClain, Cr. Law, \u00a7 328; 153 TJ. S. 614; 1 Bish. Cr. Law, \u00a7 868; 3 Greenleaf, Ev. \u00a7 123; 41 S. W. 294; 8 L. R. A. 535; 49 Ark. 453; 52 L. R. A. 751.\nGeorge W. Murphy, Attorney General, for the State.\nThe overruling of the demurrer was proper. 65 Ark. 559."
  },
  "file_name": "0610-01",
  "first_page_order": 626,
  "last_page_order": 627
}