TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ward v. State

Ward v. State, 90 S.W. 619 (Ark. 1905)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 4, 1905
Judges
Battle, Riddick
Citations
90 S.W. 61977 Ark. 191905 Ark. LEXIS 151
Disposition
reversed.
Headnotes
1. Venue — necessity of proving. — The venue in a criminal case is jurisdictional, and must be proved by the State. (Page 20.) 2. Trial- — improper argument. — It was error, in a prosecution for carnal abuse, for the prosecuting attorney, in his argument before the jury, to say: “You will have to brand the prosecuting witness as an infamous liar and a perjurer before you can acquit the defendant.” (Page 20.)
Summary
Appeal from White Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge;

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Battle

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Battle, J. The 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.

The 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.

In his argument before the jury the prosecuting attorney said, “You will have to brand the prosecuting witness, Eva Wood-son, as an infamous liar and a perjurer before you can acquit the defendant.” This remark was highly improper.

• For failure to prove the venue, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. Riddick, J., dissents.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1931: 11935: 11983: 11995: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. James v. State658 S.W.2d 382 (Ark. 1983)
  2. Atwood v. State43 S.W.2d 70 (Ark. 1931)
  3. Green v. State79 S.W.2d 1006 (Ark. 1935)
  4. Opinion No.(Ark. Att'y Gen. Apr. 26, 1995)

Most recent

  1. Opinion No.(Ark. Att'y Gen. Apr. 26, 1995)
  2. James v. State658 S.W.2d 382 (Ark. 1983)
  3. Green v. State79 S.W.2d 1006 (Ark. 1935)
  4. Atwood v. State43 S.W.2d 70 (Ark. 1931)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Reed v. State, 16 Ark. 499 (1855) 16
Frazier v. State, 19 S.W. 838 (Ark. 1892) 10
Jones v. State, 24 S.W. 1073 (Ark. 1894) 10
McQuistian v. State, 25 Ark. 435 (1869) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list