Page:Redd v. State (1897).pdf/5

ARK.] was not prejudicial as to the case against Redd, especially since the confessions of that defendant probably furnished the only grounds upon which he was convicted, and his confession, as a matter of course,  included the fact of the murderous killing, as well as the connection of that defendant with it.

As to the objection to the giving of the tenth instruction asked by the state, we do not think it well made, as that instruction substantially announces the law on the subject.

We think there was no prejudicial error in refusing the tenth instruction asked by the defendant, as the first and second instructions given by the court on its own motion, according to the uniform ruling of this court, substantially covered all the ground sought to be covered by the instruction refused.

The twelfth instruction asked by the defendant, and refused by the court, really has no evidence to support it, as it does not appear that any of the witnesses testified in consideration of an immunity from prosecution of charges pending against them, unless we are permitted to judge by inference alone. Besides, we think the instructions given fairly submitted the case to the jury.

We think the statements made by defendant Redd to witnesses Henry and McCoy, and overheard by witness Spain, were voluntarily made, and his confessions and other statements made to these witnesses and detailed by them on the trial amount to sufficient evidence to justify the verdict of the jury against him, even treating the testimony of McKay as that of an accomplice.

The question as to whether or not McKay was an accomplice was not submitted to the jury by the trial court, and is not raised expressly in the record, but was raised in argument before us on the question of sufficiency or want of evidence, and we do not feel at liberty