{
  "id": 1524458,
  "name": "Johnson v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1907-10-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "95",
  "last_page": "97",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ark. 95"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "58 Ark. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1329143
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/58/0353-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ark. 315",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1504016
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/73/0315-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721110
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/74/0355-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ark. 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1495662
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/79/0453-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ark. 117",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872432
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/36/0117-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ark. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727273,
        8727284
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/24/0540-01",
        "/ark/24/0540-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ark. 171",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1869330
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/20/0171-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ark. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726693
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/18/0521-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ark. 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725939
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/16/0594-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ark. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1862728
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/14/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ark. 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ark. 17",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1329161
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/58/0017-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ark. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1322214
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/55/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ark. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727957
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/13/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ind. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1510331
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/63/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Cal. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2314804
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/72/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Wash. 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "case_ids": [
        5296766
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash/3/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ark. 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1504013
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/73/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ark. 315",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1504016
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/73/0315-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721110
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/74/0355-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 300,
    "char_count": 3876,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.691,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3771752424108305e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7964597549895767
    },
    "sha256": "3e78552ffbac7aefb9640fbf34ff3f12f55885a8b4a70ce30290c9a337850302",
    "simhash": "1:f58ca2ea13fe1b4b",
    "word_count": 656
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:28.525494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Johnson v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hill, C. J.\nJohnson was indicted for grand larceny, charged with stealing $135, and was convicted and sentenced to one year in the penitentiary, and has appealed.\nOnly two questions are raised: First, as to the sufficiency of the evidence, and second, as to the correctness of instruction number three.\n1. The evidence has been carefully examined, and the court finds it sufficient to sustain the verdict. It would serve no useful purpose to review it.\n2. Instruction number three is as follows: \u201cThe confession of the defendant, accompanied with proof that the offense was committed by some one, will warrant a conviction.\u201d A correct principle is sought to be conveyed in this instruction, in consonance with Meisenheimer v. Staste, 73 Ark. 407. The instruction is not happily phrased, and may be subject to objection as assuming facts or charging upon facts. But the question is not properly presented. The record is made up in disregard of the rules of the court, and the original bill of exceptions seems to be incorporated in the transcript. The transcript should have been rejected by the clerk of this court, but its condition was evidently overlooked by him.\nThe motion for new trial has the following assignment of error: \u201cThe court also erred in giving to the jury, on its own\nmotion, instruction number two',\u201d and thereafter in dim pencil interlineation appears, \u201c& 3.\u201d The exception is to the instructions in gross, and would not be availing if any of them were correct. Darden v. State, 73 Ark. 315; Powell v. State, 74 Ark. 355.\nInstructions one and two are mere elemental statements, and unquestionably correct.\nBut,.even if the exception was good, the motion for new trial has not preserved the exception to instruction number three, and the failure to do so is a waiver of it This pencil interlineation, which is unauthenticated and unexplained, is not to be regarded as a part of the transcript. It has been well said: \u201cSuch doubtful lead pencil interlineations do not make a record for an appellate court.\u201d Cunningham v. Seattle Elec. Ry. Co., 3 Wash. 471. See also Heilhron v. Heinlen, 72 Cal. 376; 2 Enc. Plead. & Prac. 292.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hill, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edwin Hiner, for appellant.",
      "William F. Kirby, Attorney General, and Daniel Taylor, assistant, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Johnson v. State.\nOpinion delivered October 7, 1907.\n1. Appeal \u2014 sufficiency of exceptions to instructions. \u2014 Exceptions in gross to several instructions will not be considered if any of them are correct. (Page 96.)\n2. Same \u2014 interlineations.\u2014Lead pencil interlineations upon a transcript, if unauthenticated and unexplained, will not be regarded as part of the transcript. (Page 97.)\nAppeal from Sebastian Circuit Court; Daniel Hon, Judge;\naffirmed.\nEdwin Hiner, for appellant.\n1. The finder of lost goods may lawfully take them into his possession, and, before he can be convicted of the larceny thereof, it must be shown that the intent to steal existed at the time of the finding. 63 Ind. 285; Desty\u2019s Am. Crim. Raw, \u00a7 145. If there is any guilt here, it is of embezzlement, not larceny. The same evidence will not support an indictment for both the offense of larceny and embezzlement. 13 Ark. 168.\n2. The allegation of ownership is a material allegation in an indictment for larceny, and it must be proved. 55 Ark. 244; 58 Ark. 17; 73 Ark. 34.\n3. The court\u2019s third instruction is erroneous in assuming appellant\u2019s confession of guilt, and that it was accompanied with proof. There is no evidence warranting the instruction. 14 Ark. 286; Id. 530; 16 Ark. 594; 18 Ark. 521; 20 Ark. 171; 24 Ark. 540; 36 Ark. 117; 79 Ark. 453.\nWilliam F. Kirby, Attorney General, and Daniel Taylor, assistant, for appellee.\n1. There is ample proof of the ownership in the record. Ownership may be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence.\n2. There was no proper exception to the third instruction. Where any of the instructions are correct, a general exception is unavailing. 74 Ark. 355; 73 Ark. 315; 58 Ark. 353."
  },
  "file_name": "0095-01",
  "first_page_order": 117,
  "last_page_order": 119
}