Court Opinion

ID: 9773419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:45:16.430986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:53.570785
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (dissenting). I find no reversible error in this case, and, therefore, I vote to affirm. I. The majority opinion says that the Prosecuting Attorney in his opening argument made some improper remarks. Even so, the Trial Court told the jury: * ‘ Gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Lee wasn’t a witness to this case and he has only acted by his official duties that is required of him and you are to consider the case on the law and the evidence that is introduced and not on the argument of counsel.” The majority opinion says that in the closing argument the Prosecuting Attorney made some improper argument. Even so, the Trial Court told the jury: “As I have told the jury before that you are not to consider the case on the arguments of counsel but on the law and the evidence introduced. ’ ’ Ordinarily we hold that such admonitions by the Trial Court will erase any errors: and I think the admonitions did in this case. All the defendant did was to save his exceptions: he did not ask for a mistrial; so I think he is hardly in a position to ask for a new trial now. I cannot believe that the jury became inflamed over the remarks of the Prosecuting Attorney to such an extent as to disregard the Court’s admonitions, because the accused was not convicted of rape, but only of assault with intent to rape; and the majority opinion states that the appellant concedes that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. II. Finally, the majority opinion says that the Court allowed the Prosecuting Attorney to go too far in the interrogation of the accused on cross examination. The Prosecuting Attorney did not go as far in the case at bar as the Prosecuting Attorney did in the cross examination of the accused in the case of Seward v. State, 228 Ark. 712, 310 S. W. 2d 239. In that case the Prosecuting Attorney interrogated the defendant concerning the death of his second wife and the homicide of Will Walker; and we held that no error was committed by the Trial Court in allowing the Prosecuting Attorney to ask such questions. Likewise, I see no error here. I vote to affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.