ARK.] GOODNAUGH V. STATE: 279 GOODNAUGH V. STATE. Crim. 3948
'Opinion delivered September 23, 1935. 1. CRIMINAL LAW—coNCLUSIvENEss oF VERDICT.—A jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. 2. RAPE—CARNAL ABUSE.—Evidence held to sustain a conviction of carnally knowing a girl under sixteeo years of age. 3. RAPD—CORROBORATION OF . VICTIM.—In a prosecution for carnal abuse of a girl under sixteen years of age, corroboration of the girl's testimony was unnecessary to sustain a conviction. 4. CRIMINAL LAW— IMPEACHMENT OF VERDICT.—On a motion for new trial, testimony of jurors that older jurors persuaded younger jurors to agree to a verdict by assuring them that the court would suspend the sentence held properly excluded, as jurors may not impeach their verdict except to establish that it was made by lot. Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court ; J. 0. Kincan-non, Judge; affirmed. 0. D. Thompson and J. B.,Perrymore, for appellant. - Carl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy E. Wil-liams and Ormand B. Shaw, Assistants, for appellee. HUMPHREYS, J. Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of carnally knowing -Gladys Kimes, a gifl un-
280 • GOODNAUGH V. STATE. [191 der sixteen years of age; in Crawford County, in August, 1934, and•was adjudged to serve a term of one year in the"State penitentiary as a punishment for the statutory crime, "from which judgment is this appeal. The first assignment of error:for a reversal of the judgment is that the evidence is: insufficient to supnort the verdict of the jury. :Gladys Kimes testified that in August, 1934,• she and her sister attended•church in her neighborhood in• Craw-ford County, : and that appellant had sexual intercourse with her near Pope School House and: that, at the lime, she was fifteen years-of age.- .Dr.• John. M. SteWart testified -that he made an examination • of: Gladys 'Kimes,,which revealed that she had had sexual intercourse. -!' • . • -• • Appellant introduced witnesses tending to: establish an alibi in contradiction to her testimony. The jury accepted her testimony as true and refused to accept as true the testimony : of -appellant's -witnesses contradicting her or in support of his alibi. The conflict in testimony presented an issue for determination by the jury and not by "this : couri on appeal. On appeal -this court will not-disturb the verdict of a jury if supported by any substantial evidence, and we•fiud ample -substantial:evidence in the record to support the verdict and-judgment. No -corroboration of the testimon'y of GladyS Kinies:waS required to 'sustain a donViction for 'carnal abuse. 'Wil-son y. ;Staie',,.177,-Ark. 885; 7 S. W. (2d) 909: The second and only other: assignment of error for a reversal of the. judgment is .the:refusal of -the court to. allow the-individual-jurors 'to testify in-support : of his motion fOr A new Irial"that Some ef the older jurors persuaded . some of the , younger ones to agree to the yerdict by assuring them that the court would suspend the sentence. The verdict : returned is as follows : • "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as "charged and assess his" punishment at one year in the State:penitentiary ; we also recommend a•suspended :sentence." The -court properly exCluded the proffered testimony of the Several jurors , • on the ground that jurors are not permitted under: : our statute to impeach -their own- ver-
ARK . 281 diet unless,•the verdict was arrived at bylOt. , Section 3220 of Craw-ford & Moses ! Digest is:as follows :, °A juror cannot be exathined to establish a *ground for a new trial, except it- be to establish, as a ground for ew trial,- That the verdict- was made . by lot.":• .* Reference is also made to the cases of-Smith v . State, 59 Ark. 140,- 26 . S. W.:598, and .Wallace v: -State, 180 :Ark. 627, 22 S. W. (2d) 395. - - No error appearing, the judgment is 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.