From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perryman v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
May 1, 1967
414 S.W.2d 91 (Ark. 1967)

Opinion

No. 5234

Opinion delivered May 1, 1967

1. OBSCENITY — INDECENT EXPOSURE — WEIGHT SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — Testimony of prosecutrix and another high school student who was present when the incident occurred held sufficient to support the verdict finding accused guilty of indecent exposure. [Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-1127 and -1129.] 2. CRIMINAL LAW — WITNESSES, COMPETENCY OF MINORS AS — DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT. — In criminal cases trial judge is given wide discretion in determining competency of a minor as witness and no abuse of discretion was shown in allowing 15-year old prosecutrix to testify where record suggested no basis for questioning her competency. 3. CRIMINAL LAW — COURSE CONDUCT OF TRIAL — RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. — Trial court's refusal to permit defense counsel to delay his opening statement to jury until State had rested its case was not error.

Appeal from Washington Circuit Court, Maupin Cummings, Judge; affirmed.

No brief for appellant.

Joe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. General, for appellee.


The appellant was convicted of having indecently exposed himself to a girl under the age of sixteen. Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-1127 and -1129 (Repl. 1964). The jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment for six months. The testimony of the prosecuting witness and of another high school student who was present when the incident occurred was amply sufficient to support the verdict.

The court did not err in allowing the fifteen-year-old prosecutrix to testify. In criminal cases the trial judge is given wide discretion in determining the competency of a minor as a witness. Harris v. State, 238 Ark. 780, 384 S.W.2d 477 (1964). There was no abuse of discretion here. Quite the opposite, the record suggests no basis for questioning the competency of this witness. Nor did the court err in refusing to permit defense counsel to delay his opening statement to the jury until the State had rested its case. That exact point was decided in McDaniels v. State, 187 Ark. 1163 (mem.), 63 S.W.2d 335 (1933).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Perryman v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
May 1, 1967
414 S.W.2d 91 (Ark. 1967)
Case details for

Perryman v. State

Case Details

Full title:Charles PERRYMAN v. STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: May 1, 1967

Citations

414 S.W.2d 91 (Ark. 1967)
414 S.W.2d 91

Citing Cases

Suggs v. State

Ordinarily the defendant is required to make his opening statement immediately after the state's case and…

State v. Brown

Black v. State, 308 So.2d 79 (Miss. 1975); Perryman v. State, 242 Ark. 461, 414 S.W.2d 91 (1967). We hold…