Court Opinion

ID: 9671628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:40:44.28516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:11.205673
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. It appears to me that the court, by this opinion, is adding a requirement, not heretofore in existence, for the conviction of one accused of disposing of mortgaged property. Though, as stated by the majority, the statute itself mentions nothing about consent, I agree that if one consents that the property that has been mortgaged to him may be sold by the mortgagor, no crime has been committed. But I do not agree that such consent can be implied in this type of case, and I find no Arkansas decisions to that effect — and none are cited by the majority. The majority say that though we have not specifically said that implied consent may be inferred from a course of conduct we have given the principle effect without stating it, and three Arkansas cases are cited in support of that statement. The first of these, Kaplan v. Scherer, 205 Ark. 554, 169 S.W. 2d 660, dealt with whether the chancery court had jurisdiction in the matter there at issue. We pointed out that the right to have a suit in equity transferred to circuit court is waived by voluntarily submitting to trial of all the issues in the chancery court; the opinion also makes reference to another case, Hill v. McClintock, 175 Ark. 1059, 1 S.W. 2d 566, where this court stated: “McClintock did not ask or obtain a ruling upon his motion to dismiss the appeal, but, on the other hand, went to trial in the circuit court on the merits of the case. Under our system of pleading he will be deemed to have waived a ruling on his motion to dismiss the appeal and to have consented to the jurisdiction of the circuit court to try the case.” These cases deal entirely with court jurisdiction and I certainly cannot see where the holdings are relevant to a criminal charge of disposing of mortgaged property. The other two cases cited1 are rape cases dealing with whether the alleged rape victim, by her actions, impliedly consented to intercourse. In Threet the alleged victim admitted that she had subsequently voluntarily met the alleged rapist at the same place where she was raped, had sexual intercourse with him, and “further admitted that she had had intercourse with a number of men. ***” Also, she admitted that she had been paid money for these acts of intercourse, and each instance was with her permission (except the alleged rape). Evidence also reflected that she made no disclosure of the alleged rape until it was discovered sixty days later that she was meeting men at the place of that occurrence. I certainly do not consider that case as any authority for the holding in the case at hand. In Jackson the defense likewise was that the prosecuting witness had consented to the act of intercourse and evidence was introduced that the prosecuting witness had gone to a neighbor’s house with the alleged rapist, h^d sat there with him for some period of time, following the alleged rape, went to bed without making any complaint and subsequently met the defendant on two different occasions before bringing any charge. Jackson requested an instruction as follows: “The court instructs the jury that, if they find from the evidence in this case that the defendant and the prosecutrix remained friendly for some time after the alleged outrage, this can be considered whether the sexual intercourse was by consent or not.” We reversed because this instruction or one of a similar nature was not given. I cannot see where the holding in this case is in any way pertinent to the issue presently before us, for, of course, under the very nature of the charge of rape, the actions of the prosecutrix are fully as important as what she says, if not more so. I regret that we are, by this opinion, presenting yet another defense to the chárge of disposing of mortgaged property. I respectfully dissent.   Threet v. State, 110 Ark. 152, 161 S.W. 139; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71, 122 S.W. 101.