440 BEAUCHAMP V. STATE. [190 BEAUCHAMP V. STATE. 4-3924 . Opinion delivered February 25, 1935. CR IM IN AL LAW-ARGUMENT OF • PROSECUTOR.-A conviction of selling liquor unlawfully will be reversed where the proSecuting attorney in his closing argument referred to the fact, not shown by evidence, that three more indictments for the same offense pending against the accused. Appeal from Independence Circuit Court; S. M. Bone, Judge; reversed. Dene Ii. Coleman, for appellant. Carl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy E. Wil-liams, Assistant, for appellee. MEHAFFY, J. Tbe appellant, Mrs. J. B. Beauchamp, prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction for the crime of selling liquor in Independence County, Arkansas. Two witnesses testified that they bought whiskey from appellant. Appellant denied that she sold whiskey. There was one witness who testified that the reputation of one of the State's witnesses for truth and morality was not so good. It is contended by the appellant that the evidence is not sufficient to .sustain a. conviction. The credibility of the witnesses and weight to be given to their testimony are matters for the jnry and not this court. We think the evidence was ample to submit the question to the Jury. It is contended, however, that the judgment should be reversed, because the prosecuting . attorney, in his
ARK. 441 closing argument, stated : " The attorney for the defendant failed to call to the attention of this jury the fact that there are three more indictments pending in this court against the defendant for bootlegging." This argument was objected to by the appellant. There was no evidence .offered as to other indictments, and the only suggestion in the case that there were others pending against appellant, was tbe statement of the prosecuting attorney. The court is of opinion that remarks of the prosecuting attorney constitute prejudicial error, for which the judgment should be reversed. This court has said: " These remarks of the prosecuting attorney . had no relevancy to the issues to be tried concerning the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and the only effect they could have had upon the jury was to bring to their attention the other . indictments against apPellant. The prejudicial effect was obvious. The prosecuting attorney had the right, if appellant saw fit to take the stand as . a witness in his own behalf, to interrogate him concerning conyiction of crime Which might affect his credibility as a witness, but the officer had no . right to introduce independent proof of those facts, and, on the .contrary, was bound by appellant's answerS-. This is 50, .even to convictions', and as to Mere indictments .for crime it would not have been proper to ask appellants concerning them. At any. rate . , the prosecuting ; attorney had no right . to narrate befdre the jury other charges against appellant." Parnell v. State, 163 Ark: 316, 260 S. W.30. For the error indicated, the' judgMent mnst be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. It is so ordered.
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.