ARK.] HORTON V. STATE. 1087 . 'LORTON V. STATE. Crim. 4004 Opinion delivered July 6, 1936. 1. RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.—Both, the question of whether appellant was guilty of receiving stolen property and of the sufficiency of the eorroboration of his accomplice's testimony, were, under the evidence, properly submitted to the jury. 2. APPEAL AND FAROR.—Assignment that argument of prosecuting attorney was prejudicial cannot be considered by Supreme Court where the argument complained of is not set out in the bill of exceptions. Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Eastern District ; S. 111. Bone, Judge ; affirmed. W. A. Jackson and W. P. Smith, for appellant: Carl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy. E. Wil-liams, Assistant, for .appellee. • MCHANEY, J. Appellant was jointly indicted with Edwin Aaron, John Hudson and Ralph Freeling, charged in the first count with the larceny of two mules, the property of Andy Henson ; and in the second count, with receiving the same stolen property knowing it to be stolen.
1088 HORTON v. STATE. [192 All the.parties so charged plead guilty, except appellant: On a trial he was-found 'guilty:on the second count and sentenced to one year in the penitentiary.. For a reVerSarof the Sudgment appellant first COAL tends , that the evidence i • insUfficient to suppott the vet-diet- and that thete ne 'evidence to Corroborate 'the ac-cOinplices....It .iS undisputed in. this , reeetd, faCt, no teStiniony' Was' offered by appellant' Or in his behalf) fhat AndY Henson'S mules were Stolen and that John Hndson, Edwin' Aaron 'and Abe . pecker . aCtually dia . the 'Stealing% It is Undisprited that 'appellant and 'Freeling 'Were .en: gaged as, partners in the' bu:SinesS of 'bilYing , ' and Selling liVestoek: • Appellant' owned the barn. andlet in Which:* §tOck Was'kept . arid hiS home Was adjacent thereto'. 'Freel-ing arranged with Hudson, Aaron and 'Decker . tO `Steal Henson's mules. They went to the barn and , got -a ;saddle horse and some halters with which to lead the stolen mules back to the barn. The mules were stolen that same night, brought back and turned loose in appellant's lot. That same night theY Were 'taken te St. Louis and sold. Purchases were. made in: , St. Louis of some mares or horses which were brought back to Walnut Ridge and put in appellant's trading lot. Freeling teStified that appellant was his partne . r, and shared in this , as -well as otherthefts. As to whether the testimony . of the accomplices:is Sufficiently -corroborated, we think it sufficient to go to , the' jUry. APpellant's , hOme waS adjacent * to the stOCk lot; and it iS diffiCUlt i,c; see hoW . he eoUld have been ignorant of what was going on. Even if he did, not know that the thieves got his horse and some halters-out of the bayn,.broug ht the , mules , back and turned then . in his lot in the very shadow of . his home . , and. that 'they were taken out that .night and trucked to , St. LouiS, he miist .h6,ve known thaf . the horses . or mareS that -Were brought back from St: Loui's 'and' put in: hiS . let were not purchaSed`with his money. It was sufficient to put him oninquiry aS tO how they were acquired. In ,conversations with the sheriff and another, he stated that he was . not guilty,' but lookedlike they might hook it. on hint We think this evi l-denee . made a' question for the jury as to his 'guilt and' as to the sufficiency. of the 'corroboration. Powell. v.. State,
177 Ark. 938, 9 S. W." (2d)- 583 ; Estes v. State, 180 Ark. 656, 22 S..W. (2d) 172; Taylor v. State, 182 . Ark. 54, 30 S. W. (2d) 836. • • It is next said the court erred in its examination of the witness Aaron. During the examination of this witness by the state's attofney, • he appeared to be an unwilling witless, and the cotrt asked some questions with the eVident view of eliciting the trUth from him. It is said the CoUtt conveyed the impression that he thought appellant guilty.: A careful . reading of the questions by the court fails to convince . -us that the court even intimated such to be his belief.' It is finally urged that , the prosecuting attorney Made an erroneous closing argument. -What the prosecuting attorneY is alleged to haVe said is not found in the bill of exceptions, so we cannot consider this assignment. The court fully and * fairly instructed the jury on the law of the case, including presumption of innocence, burden of proof and reasonable doubt, and the jury has found him guilty. No error aPpearing, we must permit the judgment of conviction to stand. Affirmed. BUTLER, 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.