Court Opinion

ID: 6549607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:22:58.065113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:04.327302
License: Public Domain

Wood, J., (after stating the facts). The court did not err in refusing to permit the offered testimony as to the general reputation of Sam Hunter in the community where he lived as a “voodoo” doctor. Appellant denied that she put any poison or compound of any kind in the beer or whiskey. The testimony therefore was not relevant. If the appellant had admitted that she had put a compound or powders in the beer or'whiskey that she did not know to be poison, then this testimony might have been admissible as tending to show her purpose in so doing. The testimony, as set fqrth in the statement, was sufficient to show that the bottles were in the same condition when received by the prosecuting witness, Ellen Hall, as they were when they were delivered to the. chemist to be analyzed by him. The testimony of the prosecuting witness shows that she delivered the package to Ed Hare in the same condition in which she received it, and the testimony of Hare shows that the carton which held the beer and whiskey was sealed up when he received it. He shows that none of it was opened while it was in his house, and that the next day it was taken by the prosecuting witness, and her brother to the doctor. It was admitted that the doctor, whose name was not given, would testify that he delivered the same articles to J. N. Moore, and that Moore would testify that he turned the same articles over to Bailey, and Bailey testified that he carried the same articles to Doctor Trotter, and Doctor Trotter testified that he sent the bottles of Cook’s beer and Tom Collins whiskey, the same articles that Bailey delivered to him, over to his particular friend, Dr. J. D. McElroy, and that McElroy turned it over to the State chemist, Doctor Holtzendorff. Doctor Holtzendorff shows that the package, as delivered to him, was intact and contained two bottles, one marked “Goldblume Beer,” and the other “Tom Collins Whiskey,” and that he analyzed the contents of these two bottles, and his report shows what they contained. We are of the opinion that this testimony sufficiently identifies the beer and whiskey and shows that it was in the same .condition when it was analyzed by the chemist; so far as the contents are concerned, as it was when it was received by the prosecuting witness, Ellen Hall. Davidson v. State, 109 Ark. 420. There is nothing in this testimony to warrant the inference that any one had injected any poison into the bottles from the time they were sent by appellant and her companion from Helena on the 20th of March, 1913, to Ellen Hall, at Elaine, nor anything to warrant the conclusion that anything had been injected into the contents of the bottles from the time Ellen Hall received the same until they were analyzed by the chemist, whose report showed that they contained poison. There was testimony tending to show a motive on the part of the appellant for the commission of the offense, and the testimony, upon the whole, is sufficient, in our opinion, to sustain the verdict finding her guilty of the crime charged. It is conceded that there was no error in the charge of the court. The judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered.