History
  • No items yet
midpage
Crumpton v. State
52 Ark. 273
Ark.
1889
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Witnesses: Bias of. During the trial of the appellant, a witness introduced by him was asked if he had not made certain statements, which, if made, tended to show that he felt an interest in the defendant’s behalf. He denied that he had made the statements, and the State was permitted, against his objection, to prove that he had made them. The bias of one called to testify in a case is not a collateral matter. The testimony was competent. Butler v. State, 34 Ark., 480; Whar. Cr. Ev., sec. 483.

Instructions. It is urged that the court erred in instructing the jury as to the law of manslaughter, against the appellant’s objection. We cannot say there was no testimony to justify a conviction of manslaughter. Affirm.

Case Details

Case Name: Crumpton v. State
Court Name: Supreme Court of Arkansas
Date Published: Nov 15, 1889
Citation: 52 Ark. 273
Court Abbreviation: Ark.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.