Supreme Court of Arkansas
63 Ark. 457
Redd v. State
Appeal from Drew Circuit Court
Opinion delivered June 9, 1894.
ACCOMPLICE—WHO IS.—A witness jointly indicted with two defendants on trial is an accomplice where the indictment against him is undisposed of, and there is evidence tending to connect him with the crime charged, though such evidence is meagre and unsatisfactory; and his testimony, uncorroborated, is insufficient to support a conviction of the defendants.
EVIDENCE—NON-EXPERT TESTIMONY.—Upon the question whether deceased was murdered or committed suicide, it being shown that he held a knife loosely in his hand when found dead, it was error to admit the evidence of non-experts that certain persons supposed to have committed suicide with knives, and whose bodies they afterwards saw, each held a knife tightly grasped in his hand, in the absence of other proof that they had committed suicide—even if such evidence were otherwise admissible.
SAME—WHEN PREJUDICIAL.—The error of admitting incompetent evidence tending to convict defendant of the crime of murder is not cured by proof of his extrajudicial confession, since the confession would not support a conviction unless corroborated by evidence that the death was caused by a criminal agency.
SAME.—The error of admitting non-expert testimony tending to prove that a suicide would be likely to hold the knife with which he killed himself tightly grasped in his hand is not cured by introducing expert testimony to the same effect.
INSTRUCTION—WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.—It is error to instruct the jury that confessions, "when deliberately and voluntarily made, are deemed to be among the most effectual proofs of the guilt of the defendant."
SAME—CONFESSION OF AN ACCOMPLICE.—It is error in a murder case to instruct the jury that if they believe that the defendants, or either of them, confessed to the killing of the deceased, and that both of the defendants participated in the killing, they may convict, as the confession of one defendant is no evidence against the other.
Appeal from Drew Circuit Court.
MARCUS L. HAWKINS, Judge.
H. King White for appellant.
Frank McCoy was an accomplice. Sand. & H. Dig., sec. 1451. And defendant could not be convicted on his uncorroborated testimony. Ib. sec. 2230. Instructions Nos. 11 and 12 asked by defendant are the law. 122 Ill. App. 79.
E. B. Kinsworthy, Attorney General, for appellee.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse