 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Titsworth v. State, No. CACR08-817,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 18, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict during his trial for theft of property, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-36-103(a)(1), because there was sufficient evidence to show that he knowingly took or exercised unauthorized control over tires; he admitted to police that he removed the tires from a business.
|
|||||
| Winston v. State, No. CACR08-620,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 18, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order revoking defendant's suspended sentence was upheld because the trial court did not err under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-2-305 in denying defendant's request for a second mental evaluation after the first evaluation concluded that he did not suffer from a mental disease or defect; the trial court was within its discretion to close the inquiry.
|
|||||
| Young v. State, CACR08-638,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 18, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for Class B felony theft of property, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-36-103(b)(1)(A), was reduced to Class A misdemeanor theft of property under ¿ 5-36-103(b)(4)(A) because the 1981 vehicle that was stolen had between 250,000 and 300,000 miles on it, had been wrecked, was primed, and the interior had never been restored.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
