Court Opinion

ID: 9864438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:07:04.21566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:13.113981
License: Public Domain

Grieein Smith, O. J., (concurring). No prejudice resulted from the court’s ruling that the information might be amended. If, however, it is the majority’s intention to say that substitution of one name for another in any case would not be error, I think that holding would be wrong. If it should be alleged that A, of Pulaski county, stole a cow belonging to B, of Sebastian county, when in fact the animal had been purloined from 0, of Union county, and the defendant in good faith had prepared to defend the original charge, it would not require the marshalling* of logic to convince one that rights had been impaired by permitting a different owner to be named and denying time to meet the new issue. In quoting from McDougal v. State, 202 Ark. 936, 154 S. W. 2d 810, the statement is repeated that “. . . sufficiency of the corroborating evidence is also a question for the jury.” Credibility of witnesses whose testimony corroborates an accomplice is for the jury, but such evidence must be substantial, and substantiality is a matter of law. Murphy v. Murphy, 144 Ark. 429, 222 S. W. 721; Missouri Pacific Transportation Company v. Bell, 197 Ark. 250, 122 S. W. 2d 958.