# Bone v. State (200 Ark. 592)

Supreme Court of Arkansas
200 Ark. 592
Bone v. State
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division.
No. 4164.---Delivered: May 13, 1940.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* INDICTMENTS AND INFORMATIONS—SIGNATURE OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO INFORMATIONS.—An information bearing the name of the prosecuting attorney in print with the words "By J. D., Deputy Prosecuting Attorney," signed with a pen is sufficient.
* CRIMINAL LAW—SELECTION OF JURY.—Where it became neces.sary to select five bystanders to complete the jury, there was no error in the clerk calling the fourth name on the list before he called the name of the third, since the clerk testified that he had no preference of one over the other and that he called the fourth one on the list first because he entered the room first.
* CRIMINAL LAW—JURIES.—Appellants were not entitled to the services of any particular juror; they may only demand that they be tried by a fair and impartial jury.
* CRIMINAL LAW—JURIES—RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.—Where, after the regular panel had been exhausted, the sheriff was directed to summon others for service, and he called them over the telephone not knowing, in some instances, whether the person called was white or colored, there was no discrimination on account of race or color shown.
* CRIMINAL LAW—EVIDENCE.—In the prosecution of appellants for killing Mrs. D., evidence of an assault on her husband was admissible as part of the res gestae where it occurred in the same encounter in which Mrs. D. was killed.
* INSTRUCTIONS.—One convicted of a lower degree of crime than that with which he was charged may not complain of alleged errors in instructions covering a higher degree of crime.
* CRIMINAL LAW.—Evidence, held insufficient to sustain a conviction of murder in the second degree.
* CRIMINAL LAW.—The evidence viewed in its most favorable light to the state cannot support a verdict for a higher degree of homicide than voluntary manslaughter.
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; Gus Fulk, Judge; modified and affirmed. ​Scipio A. Jones and Elmer Schoggen, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
[Opinion of the court by Justice J. SEABORNE HOLT.]
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