Case Name: Snyder v. State
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1908-06-01
Citations: 86 Ark. 456
Docket Number: 
Parties: Snyder v. State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 456–460

Head Matter:
Snyder v. State.
Opinion delivered June 1, 1908.
1. Appeal — record—stenographer’s notes. — Notes of the court stenographer, filed in a case' and copied in the transcript, will not be considered on appeal unless they have been approved by the circuit judge and made part of the bill of exceptions. (Page 457.)
2. Instruction — province oe jury. — It was not error to refuse to instruct the jury in effect that they did not have the right to reject the testimony of any impeached witness which has been corroborated by other evidence. (Page 458.)
3. " Same — necessity OE request. — It is not the duty of the court to instruct the jury on its own motion as to the doctrine of reasonable doubt in a criminal case. (Page 460.)
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court; /. Hugh Bashcrn, Judge;
affirmed.
J. T. Bullock and Brooks, Hays & Martin, for appellant.
1. The remarks of the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement were improper and prejudicial.
2. The prosecuting witness was certainly impeached. Kirby’s Digest, § § 3138, 2382.
3. Instruction (C) alone was given, and the jury were not told to consider it with the others. Defendant was deprived of the benefit of a reasonable doubt. 20 Ark. 166; 66 Id. 449; 62 Id. 478; 74 Miss. 780; 73 Id. 873; 119 N. C. 793; 17 So. 456; 66 S. W. 184, 1101; 64 Id. 270, 965; 36 Id. 645.
4. For distinction between reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence, see 10 Enc. of Ev. 625; 156 U. S. 432. It was error to refuse instruction 3.
Wm. F. Kirby, Attorney General and Dan’l Taylor, Assistant, for appellee.
Taking the instructions as a whole, - they are correct. 64 Ark. 247; 66 Id. 588; 83 Id. 81, 61.

Opinion:
Battle, J.
Sam Snyder was indicted for unlawfully and feloniously carnally knowing and abusing Willie Burris, a female under the age of sixteen years, and was convicted, and his punishment was assessed at five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. He appealed to this court.
There is no bill of exceptions in the case. The stenographer's report of the evidence is in the transcript, but it was not approved by the judge presiding at the trial of appellant, and is no part of the record. Section three of the act entitled "An act to provide a court stenographer for the Fifth Judicial District of Arkansas" (in which appellant was tried and convicted), approved March 3, 1903, provides as follows:
"It shall be the duty of said stenographer, upon demand of either party to a cause, to furnish within twenty days after the trial, or twenty days from date of demand, a longhand typewritten copy of the oral proceedings of the trial, which shall be certified by him as correct, and, when approved by the judge presiding at the trial, shall be filed as a part of the record in the cause, and shall be used as a part of the bill of exceptions and as a part of the transcript in the Supreme Court without necessity for another copy thereof."
Opinion delivered June 22, 1908.
When approved by the presiding judge and filed, it shall be used as a part of the bill of exceptions. It can be made available on appeal only by being made a part of a bill of exceptions. There are in the transcript what purport to be instructions of the court, but they are not made a part of the record by bill of exceptions, and cannot be considered by this court. Every attack of appellant upon the judgment of the trial court rests upon grounds which can be presented to- this court only by bill of exceptions. Without it the judgment must be affirmed; and it is so ordered.