{
  "id": 1499102,
  "name": "Ward v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ward v. State",
  "decision_date": "1905-11-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "19",
  "last_page": "20",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 Ark. 19"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "58 Ark. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1329181
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/58/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1326094
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/56/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ark. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1864545
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/25/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ark. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725582
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/16/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ark. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727925
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/13/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Ark. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727556
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/8/0400-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1736,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.72,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.874042226057664e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7266939114983152
    },
    "sha256": "7508997b898a7643f1a324cbc9cade41c8197109c85d32cf8583fb9b02cc1483",
    "simhash": "1:c2770c803840761b",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:07:56.426688+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Riddick, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Ward v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nThe grand jury of White County indicted B. H. Ward for carnally knowing and unlawfully abusing Eva Wood-son, a female under the age of sixteen years. He was convicted and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the period of one year.\nThe record in this court shows that the State failed to prove the county in which the offense was committed. This is a jurisdictional fact, and must be proved by the State. It is necessary to prove it in order to convict the defendant of a criminal offense. Sullivant v. State, 8 Ark. 400; Holeman v. State, 13 Ark. 105; Reed v. State, 16 Ark. 499; McQuistian v. State, 25 Ark. 435; Frazier v. State, 56 Ark. 242; Jones v. State, 58 Ark. 390; 22 Enc. Pleading & Practice, 827, and cases cited.\nIn his argument before the jury the prosecuting attorney said, \u201cYou will have to brand the prosecuting witness, Eva Wood-son, as an infamous liar and a perjurer before you can acquit the defendant.\u201d This remark was highly improper.\n\u2022 For failure to prove the venue, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.\nRiddick, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. Brundidge, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ward v. State.\nOpinion delivered November 4, 1905.\n1. Venue \u2014 necessity of proving. \u2014 The venue in a criminal case is jurisdictional, and must be proved by the State. (Page 20.)\n2. Trial- \u2014 improper argument. \u2014 It was error, in a prosecution for carnal abuse, for the prosecuting attorney, in his argument before the jury, to say: \u201cYou will have to brand the prosecuting witness as an infamous liar and a perjurer before you can acquit the defendant.\u201d (Page 20.)\nAppeal from White Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge;\nreversed.\nS. Brundidge, Jr., for appellant.\nRobert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0019-01",
  "first_page_order": 41,
  "last_page_order": 42
}