Case Name: Sullivan v. State
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1923-11-05
Citations: 161 Ark. 19
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sullivan v. State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 161
Pages: 19–26

Head Matter:
Sullivan v. State.
Opinion delivered November 5, 1923.
1. Criminal law — absence of bill of exceptions — matters reviewable. — Where no bill of exceptions is filed in a capital case, the Supreme Court can review only for errors apparent on the face of the record.
2. Indictment and information — filing in open court.- — where the record of the proceedings of the circuit court on a certain day recited that the gránd jury came into court and presented two hills of indictment, numbered one and two, and the indictment against appellant herein contains the indorsement that it was filed on that day and numbered one, this was a sufficient showing that the grand jury was duly .selected and impaneled.
S. Criminal law- — presumption as to regularity. — Where the record recites that the court ordered the sheriff to bring the accused into court, and that the court informed him of the nature of the indictment and of his rights thereunder, it will be presumed that all of these proceedings took place in open court.
4. Jury — waiver of right to object. — Where the record in a capital case recites that the jury were selected and impaneled in open court, without objection as to the manner of their selection, all objections to the manner of their selection were waived.
Appeal from Boone Circnit Court; J. M. Shinn, Judge;
affirmed.
A. B. Arbaugh, for appellant.
J. S. Utley, Attorney General, John L. Garter, Assistant, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hart, J.
Eulos Sullivan was tried before a jury and convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury fixed his punishment at death by electrocution, and from the judgment and sentence of conviction against him Eulos Sullivan has prosecuted an appeal to this court.
No bill of exceptions has been filed in the case, and, under the rules of this court, we can only review for errors apparent on the face of the record. Harding v. State, 94 Ark. 65; Morris v. State, 142 Ark. 297, and cases cited; and Cegars v. State, 150 Ark. 648.
We have examined the indictment and find it to be a valid indictment. There is no error upon the face of the record. The object of a bill of exceptions is to bring the proceedings of the trial court, which are not a part of the record proper, in the record for review in this court. If no bill of exceptions was required, the defendant might make up his own assignments of error and an entirely different case from the one tried in the court below would be presented for review in this court.
We find no reversible error in the record presented to us for review, and it follows that the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.-