Court Opinion

ID: 7813629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:27:17.424362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:32.594840
License: Public Domain

Paul Ward, J., dissenting. It is my opinion that the testimony in this case, giving it the strongest probative value, only raises a suspicion that appellant knew the property was stolen. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted under the authority of: Jones v. State, 85 Ark. 360, 108 S. W. 223; Andrews v. State, 100 Ark. 184, 137 S. W. 1134; McCoy v. State, 177 Ark. 1053, 9 S. W. 2d 241; France v. State, 68 Ark. 529, 60 S. W. 236.