next assignment error in Arkansas

1992In Franz v. State, 296 Ark. 181 , 754 S.W.2d 839 (1988), we explained that a defendant in a capital case has an unqualified right to appeal, but if competent, he may waive that right.

1992In Franz v. State, 296 Ark. 181 , 754 S.W.2d 839 (1988), we explained that a defendant in a capital case has an unqualified right to appeal, but if competent, he may waive that right.

1967If it be assumed that the answer was unresponsive to the question and erroneously given, any possible prejudice arising therefrom was cured by the court’s action.” Also, in Knight and Johnson v. State, 228 Ark. 502 , 308 S. W. 2d 821 , we said: “Harper was asked by the State if he received any money from any of the accused by way of restitution, and in replying in the affirmative he mentioned appellant’s name.

1967If it be assumed that the answer was unresponsive to the question and erroneously given, any possible prejudice arising therefrom was cured by the court’s action.” Also, in Knight and Johnson v. State, 228 Ark. 502 , 308 S. W. 2d 821 , we said: “Harper was asked by the State if he received any money from any of the accused by way of restitution, and in replying in the affirmative he mentioned appellant’s name.

1962In Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S.W.2d 960 , this Court said: "The next assignment of error relates to the admission of testimony for the plaintiff, Mrs. Jackson.

1962In Murray v. Jackson, 180 Ark. 1144 , 24 S.W.2d 960 , this Court said: "The next assignment of error relates to the admission of testimony for the plaintiff, Mrs. Jackson.

1941In the first place, it may.be said that the question was a proper one on cross-examination, as affecting the credibility of the defendant as a witness.” The ruling in the Bowlin ease was affirmed recently by our Supreme Court in the case of Craig v. State, 196 Ark. 761 , 120 S. W. 2d 23 , in the following language: “Appellant’s only contention for a reversal of the judgment is that the court committed reversible error in allowing the prosecuting attorney, over his objection and exception, to ask him on cross-examination whether he had been convicted of reckless driving prior to the accident.

1941In the first place, it may.be said that the question was a proper one on cross-examination, as affecting the credibility of the defendant as a witness.” The ruling in the Bowlin ease was affirmed recently by our Supreme Court in the case of Craig v. State, 196 Ark. 761 , 120 S. W. 2d 23 , in the following language: “Appellant’s only contention for a reversal of the judgment is that the court committed reversible error in allowing the prosecuting attorney, over his objection and exception, to ask him on cross-examination whether he had been convicted of reckless driving prior to the accident.

1941This court said in the case of Bowlin v. State, 175 Ark. 1047 , 1 S. W. 2d 546 , that: “The next assignment of error is that the court allowed the prosecuting attorney to ask the defendant the following question: ‘How many times have you been fined and pleaded guilty for fighting, or other offenses in Johnson county since you have lived here?’ The defendant answered that he had not been in the last two years.

1941This court said in the case of Bowlin v. State, 175 Ark. 1047 , 1 S. W. 2d 546 , that: “The next assignment of error is that the court allowed the prosecuting attorney to ask the defendant the following question: ‘How many times have you been fined and pleaded guilty for fighting, or other offenses in Johnson county since you have lived here?’ The defendant answered that he had not been in the last two years.

1930Beliance to sustain this assignment of error is placed upon the case of Dunn v. State, 2 Ark. 229 .

1928The next assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to tell the jury that it was lawful for the defendant to have intoxicating liquors in his possession, and in making this contention the defendant relies upon the case of Dickerson v. State, 161 Ark. 60 , 255 S. W. 873 .

1928The next assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to tell the jury that it was lawful for the defendant to have intoxicating liquors in his possession, and in making this contention the defendant relies upon the case of Dickerson v. State, 161 Ark. 60 , 255 S. W. 873 .

1926The court erred in requiring appellant to answer the questions propounded by the prosecuting attorney relative to shooting other men prior to shooting the deceased. ” In so holding we inadvertently, and without express mention, overruled the case of Turner v. State, 128 Ark. 565 -568, where, upon a precisely similar, question, we said: “The next assignment of error is that the court erred in permitting the State to prove by defendant, on his cross-examination, that he had once killed another man in that county.

1926The respective theories with regard to the fraudulent representation, that the agent of Mrs. Fall represented that the land was not infested with Johnson grass, and thereby secured the execution of the lease contract, and the theory of the plaintiff, that no such representation was made, were fully and fairly presented to the jury in accordance with the principles of law decided in Neely v. Rembert, 71 Ark. 91 , 71 S. W. 259 .

1926The respective theories with regard to the fraudulent representation, that the agent of Mrs. Fall represented that the land was not infested with Johnson grass, and thereby secured the execution of the lease contract, and the theory of the plaintiff, that no such representation was made, were fully and fairly presented to the jury in accordance with the principles of law decided in Neely v. Rembert, 71 Ark. 91 , 71 S. W. 259 .

1926Brown v. State, 169 Ark. 324 . • The third contention of counsel for the defendant is that the court erred in permitting the State to interrogate the defendant with reference to a passport obtained by her after the commission of the alleged offense.

1923Co., 141 Ark. 414 .

1922The form of the verdict is as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty and place his punishment for life in the State Penitentiary.” Reliance is placed by counsel upon the case of Banks v. State, 143 Ark. 154 .

1919State v. Clark, 147 Mo. 20 ; 47 S. W. 886 , and Wharton on Homicide, (3 Ed), par. 359. (4-5) The next assignment of error is that the judgment should be reversed because the court gave instruction No. 13, which is as follows: “You are further instructed that if you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, in Lafayette County, Arkansas, and within three years before the return of the indictment herein into the court, unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously, but without premeditation or deliberation, shot at witness, John Law, and killed the deceased, you wi

1919State v. Clark, 147 Mo. 20 ; 47 S. W. 886 , and Wharton on Homicide, (3 Ed), par. 359. (4-5) The next assignment of error is that the judgment should be reversed because the court gave instruction No. 13, which is as follows: “You are further instructed that if you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, in Lafayette County, Arkansas, and within three years before the return of the indictment herein into the court, unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously, but without premeditation or deliberation, shot at witness, John Law, and killed the deceased, you wi

1919Paxton v. State, 114 Ark. 398 . (4) The next assignment of error is that the court gave conflicting instructions to the jury.