ARk.] WARD V. STATE. 19 WARD V. STATE. Opinion delivered November 4, 1905. VENUE—NECESSITY OF PROVING.—The venue in a criminal case is jurisdictional, and must be proved by the State. (Page zo.) z. TRIAL—IMPROPER ARCUMENI. —It was error, in a prosecution for carnal abuse, for the prosecuting attorney, in his argument before the jury, to say : "You will have to brand the prosecuting witness, as an infamous liar and a perjurer before you can acquit the defendant:' (Page zo.) Appeal from White Circuit Court; HANCE N. HUTTON; udge; reversed. S. Brundidge, Jr., for appellant. Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee. BATTLE, J.. The geand jury of White County indicted B. H. Ward' ior carnally knowing and unlawfully abusing Eva Wood-son, a female under the age of sixteen years. He was convicted
20 [77 and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary /or the period of one year. The record in this court shows that the State failed to prove the county in which the offense was committed. This is a jurisdictional fact, and must be proved by the State. It is necessary to prove it , in order to convict the defendant of a criminal offense. Sullivant v. State, 8 Ark. 400; Holeman v. State, 13 Ark. 105; Reed v. State, 16 Ark. 499; McQuistian v. State, 25 Ark. 435; Frasier y. State, 56 Ark. 242; Jones v. State, 58 Ark. 390 ; 22 Enc. Pleading & Practice, 827, and cases cited. In his argument before the jury the prosecuting attorney s :a id, "You will have to brand the prosecuting witness, Eva Wood-son, as an infamous liar and a perjurer before you can acquit the defendant." This remark was highly improper. For failure to prove the venue, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. RIDDICK, J., dissents.
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.