 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Callaway v. State, No. CR06-675,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 11, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not object to the exclusion of his wife during the testimony of her children, but objected only to the exclusion on hearsay grounds, defendant did not preserve his sole point on appeal, and the circuit court's ruling was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Cave v. State, No. CR 06-959,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 11, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea of guilty to battery and DWI, he had no right to appeal. There was no adverse ruling on the motion to suppress evidence and the denial of his motion to dismiss did not fall within the purview of Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b).
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, No. CR06-669,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 11, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that defendant had the requisite mens rea for first-degree murder under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-11-102(a) at the time he shot and killed his wife because an expert for the State testified that defendant did not have a mental disease or defect at the time of the shooting.
|
|||||
| Dodson v. Norris, No. 06-333,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 11, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant serving a life sentence for controlled substances offenses was not entitled to habeas relief under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103. His speedy-trial argument could have been raised on direct appeal, and his claim that the information was not properly amended required factual inquiry beyond that appropriate to a habeas corpus proceeding.
|
|||||
| Holsombach v. State, No. CR06-550,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 11, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's statement to police was voluntary because his statement, "you'll furnish me a public defender," was an equivocal request for counsel, made in the middle of the officer's recitation of the rights on the Miranda form, signifying that defendant was merely repeating what the officer had just told him.
|
|||||
| In re McDonald, No. 06-1413,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 11, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Nationwide Ins. Enter. v. Ibanez, No. 06-765,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 11, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The employer, as garnishee, was required to withhold only $1,086.37 from the employee's wages under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-110-407 and Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.200 as both parties conceded the proper amount owed to the insurer was $1,086.37, not $11,523.39; to allow the insurer's collection of entire amount owed before reduction would be inequitable.
|
|||||
| Rodgers v. State, No. CR 05-1112,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 11, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant convicted of rape was not entitled to postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek DNA testing, appellant's speedy trial claim had been rejected in the lower court, and there was no absolute right to appointment of counsel in postconviction matters.
|
|||||
| Russell v. State, No. CR 06-1425,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 11, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the clerk refused to docket an appeal and accept the record based on a failure to comply with Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 5(b)(1), the state supreme court would not grant defendant's motion for rule on clerk. The orders extending the time to file the record failed to state that a hearing was held or that the State agreed to entry of the order.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
