{
  "id": 1524528,
  "name": "McNeely v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "McNeely v. State",
  "decision_date": "1907-12-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "484",
  "last_page": "485",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ark. 484"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 So. 690",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ark. 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877181
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/32/0187-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Tex. 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tex.",
      "case_ids": [
        569423
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tex/31/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ark. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872476
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/36/0084-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ark. 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725378
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/19/0143-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ark. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ark. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872476
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/36/0084-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2318,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.692,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.093613628115732e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42653664364215826
    },
    "sha256": "68d86d90b0e1416251d70355aeb47ba14100cef794bfb506a2ed4a93343acf3e",
    "simhash": "1:c962c044c0d8a199",
    "word_count": 385
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:28.525494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "McNeely v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BaTTeE, J.\nS. W. McNeely and Ella Paxton were indicted for and convicted of illegal cohabitation. The Attorney General confesses error because the verdict is not sustained by evidence.\nThe statute provides that \u201cIf any man and woman cohabit together as husband and wife without being married, each of them shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,\u201d etc. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 1810. Sexual intercourse between persons not married, though living in the same house, is not sufficient to constitute the offense of cohabiting together as husband and wife, without being married. Taylor v. State. 36 Ark. 84. \u201cIf they live together in the same house in like manner as respects bed and board as marks the intercourse between husband and wife, they, in sense and meaning of the statute, cohabit as husband and wife.\u201d Sullivan v. State, 32 Ark. 191. They must \u201ccohabit together as husband and wife,\u201d must dwell together as if conjugal relations existed between them, must deport themselves toward each other as husband and wife.\nIn this case there is no evidence that the defendants ate at the same table, or slept in the same room, or cohabited together as husband and wife.\nThe confession of error is sustained.\nReverse and remand for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BaTTeE, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scott & Head, for appellant.",
      "William F. Kirby, Attorney General, and Dan\u2019l Taylor, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "McNeely v. State.\nOpinion delivered December 9, 1907.\nIiAEGAE cohabitation \u2014 sufficiency of evidence. \u2014 Sexual intercourse between unmarried persons living in the same house is not a violation of the statute against illegal cohabitation if there is no evidence that they live together in like manner as respects bed and board as marks the intercourse between husband and wife.\nAppeal from Little River Circuit Court; James S. Steel, Judge;\nreversed.\nScott & Head, for appellant.\n1. Having alleged that appellants were not husband and wife, the burden was on the State to prove that allegation. Not having done so, the court should have granted appellant\u2019s request for a peremptory instruction. 19 Ark. 143.\n2. The proof falls far short of establishing a case of illegal cohabitation. Sexual intercourse between persons not married does not constitute the crime. There is no proof that they sustained toward each oth\u00e9r relations similar to those of husband and wife. 36 Ark. 84; 31 Tex. 95; 32 Ark. 187; 2 So. 690.\nWilliam F. Kirby, Attorney General, and Dan\u2019l Taylor, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0484-01",
  "first_page_order": 506,
  "last_page_order": 507
}