ARK.] 841 BOBBY EARL NORFUL AND SAMUEL EDWARD NORFUL v. STATE OF ARKANSAS 5795 48g S.W. 2d 239
Opinion delivered January 22, 1973 CRIMINAL LAW—IDENTI FICATION — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — Eye witness identification, possession of fruits of the crime within minutes after the robbery, and a signed confession by both appellants held sufficient identification. Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Fourth Division, Richard B. Adkisson, Judge; affirmed. John C. Earl, for appellants. Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., by: Julie McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. CONLEY BYRD, Justice. Appellants Bobby Earl Norful and Samuel Edward Norful contend that their robbery conviction should be set aside because of lack of identification. There is no merit to this contention. The record shows eye witness identification, possession of the fruits of the crime within minutes after the robbery, and a signed confession by both appellants. Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.