Court Opinion

ID: 9825688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:56:04.413187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:16.587793
License: Public Domain

McHaney, J., (on rehearing). Appellants make a very strong argument that we erred in holding there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. But what we said in the original opinion, to which we adhere, answers this contention. It was a question pf fact for the jury, and it is the settled rule of this court,' announced in hundreds of decisions, that it is not our province to set aside the verdict of the jury supported by substantial evidence. We think the evidence is substantial, direct and positive, and was a question for the .jury’s determination and not ours. The only other question raised in the' brief on rehearing which calls for discussion is that this court erred in affirming death sentences based upon the following verdicts: “We, the jury, find the defendant, Jim X. Caruthers, guilty as charged, in the indictment, and fix his punishment at death by. electrocution. Ike Miller, foreman.” A like verdict was rendered in. the case of Bubbles Clayton. It is urged that, since an indictment for rape includes also a charge of carnal abuse, a charge of incest and a charge of assault with intent to rape, that' the above verdicts were defective in failing to find the particular offense, with which appellants were charged. Had the verdicts in these cases simply found the defendants guilty as charged in the indictment without fixing the punishment, there might.be some merit to appellants’ contention.' It is true tliat in the case of Banks v. State, 143 Ark. 154, 219 S. W. 1015, on a charge of murder in the first degree, the verdict read: “We, the jury, find the defendants, John Martin and Alf Banks, Jr., guilty as charged in the indictment,” this court held that the verdict was so fatally defective that no judgment could be rendered upon it. So it has been held in a number of murder cases by this court. These decisions were founded on the provisions of the act of December 17,1838, digested as § 3205 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, which provides: ‘ ‘ The jury shall, in all cases of murder, on conviction of the accused, find by their verdict whether he be guilty of murder in the. first or second degreebut if the accused confesses guilt, the court shall impanel a jury and examine testimony, and the degree of the crime shall be found by such jury.” We have no such statute in relation to the charge of rape, and moreover we are of the opinion that the verdicts rendered in these cases are made definite and certain by the jury in fixing the punishment at death by electrocution. No such punishment could have been indicted by the jury for any of the lesser offenses. Moreover, this court has several times held that a general verdict, like the one in question is sufficient. In the recent case of Wallace v. State, 180 Ark. 627, 22 S. W. (2d) 395, the indictment charged the appellant with grand larceny. The jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, and fix his punishment at one year, and recommend to the court to suspend his sentence on good behavior.” It was contended in that case that the verdict was indefinite,- and that it did not show what the defendant was guilty of. In answer to this contention, the court said: “It is true that’ the verdict must, either in itself or by reference to the indictment or information, contain a finding of every essential element of the crime of which the appellant is convicted. But a verdict of guilty implies a finding of every element essential to constitute the crime as charged, and it need not state the specific crime, it being sufficient that it finds the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment or information, or that from its laneuas'e as a whole no doubt can arise as to the offense of which, the accused is convicted.” Citing' 16 C. J. 1109; Porter v. State, 57 Ark. 267, 21 S. W. 467. Continuing, the court said: “It is only in cases of murder that the statute makes it necessary for the jury to state in their verdict the degree of crime.” The court then quoted § 3205, Crawford & Moses ’ Digest, regarding verdicts on indictments for murder, and said: “But there is no such requirement in indictments for other felonies.” See also Gribble v. State, 189 Ark. 805, 75 S. W. (2d) 660. The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.