Court Opinion

ID: 9778668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:15:46.277707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.459065
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result reached by the majority, but my reasons for doing so are different from theirs insofar as points two and three are concerned. POINT TWO As I understand appellants’" position, they question the admissibility of the testimony of officer Atkinson that one of appellants stated, in response to a question, that he hadn’t worked for four or five years and that appellant had conducted “till taps”, “pigeon drops” and “con games” throughout about three or four states, and that the statement was substantiated by this appellant’s wife. The officer -had previously stated that a “till tap” was a “con game” in which one of the “crew” by which it is conducted diverts the attention of the owner or manager of a place of business while another goes into the cash box or drawer and removes the proceeds, the method allegedly used by appellants in this case. Appellants made an objection to the introduction of this testimony, were overruled and noted their exceptions. They urged in the motion for new trial and in their brief that the impropriety lay in permitting the state to attempt to show evidence of other offenses by appellants and to attack the character of appellants. I deem this testimony to be proper to show a series of similar offenses and a system of operation in the execution of a common plan, scheme, design, purpose and conspiracy of appellants. Setzer v. State, 110 Ark. 226, 161 S. W. 190; Nichols v. State, 153 Ark. 467, 240 S. W. 716; Middleton v. State, 162 Ark. 530, 258 S. W. 995; Larman v. State, 171 Ark. 1188, 286 S. W. 933; Puckett v. State, 194 Ark. 449, 108 S. W. 2d 468; Rowland v. State, 213 Ark. 780, 213 S. W. 2d 370; Mouser v. State, 216 Ark. 965, 228 S. W. 2d 472. POINT THREE I agree that objection to the argument of the State’s attorney should have been made in time for appropriate admonition to the jury. I do have serious question as to propriety of the argument made. I deem it unnecessary to approve it in deciding this case. Not only did appellants make no objection to the argument at the time it was made, but the question was first raised by motion for mistrial, after the jury had retired. Even this is not carried into the motion for new trial, so the question is not here for review. McConnell v. State, 227 Ark. 988, 302 S. W. 2d 805; Randall v. State, 239 Ark. 312, 389 S. W. 2d 229.