 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Garner v. State, CA CR 02-332,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony of another student showed plan and modus operandi by demonstrating that defendant had gone through a similar sequence with all of the girls that preceded the actual assaults, and the testimony was admissible.
|
|||||
| Gooden v. State, CACR00-845,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's original three-year probation periods for his four convictions had expired and were not properly extended, the circuit court had no authority to revoke defendant's probation.
|
|||||
| McClellan v. State, CA CR 02-907,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 2, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where victim's testimony at trial was not in conflict with information in medical records, the information contained in the medical records was merely cumulative of her trial testimony and defendant's objection to the records was overruled.
|
|||||
| Miller v. State, CA CR 02-715,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 2, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where juror and robbery victim's father were members of same golf club, but colloquy established juror could set aside knowledge of parties, decide case on facts, and abide by law, there was no for-cause basis to exclude juror.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. State, CACR02-523,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Witnesses observed defendant fleeing parking lot robbery and substantial evidence supported conviction. Defendant was not entitled to a lesser-included instruction on robbery, and defendant failed to preserve challenge to in-court identifications.
|
|||||
| Pace v. State, CACR 02-648,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant, where the victim positively identified defendant and analysis showed that the recovered bullet was fired from the pistol recovered from defendant on the night of the incident.
|
|||||
| Poyner v. State, CACR02-493,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no dispute that child sexual assault victim initially gave a different statement to family. Thus, defendant failed to lay a foundation for impeachment. Proffered testimony of bias occurred with defendant on stand and was properly excluded.
|
|||||
| Reynolds Termite & Pest Control v. Brady, CA02-766,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where owners failed to show proximate causation between the company's conduct and the eventual termite damage suffered by the owners, owners claim, whether tort of breach or contract, failed.
|
|||||
| Rice v. State, CACR02-518,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress custodial statement was properly denied, as statement was voluntary. Convictions of possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and of attempted manufacture of that drug did not violate double jeopardy.
|
|||||
| Schantz v. Schantz, CA02-966,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not clearly err by granting the mother custody of the parties' child, where it properly evaluated the allegations of both parties that the other was unfit and found the child's best interests warranted custody by the mother.
|
|||||
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. |
