 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arnold v. State, CACR05-906,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (Supp. 2003) were upheld because there was substantial evidence presented at trial to show that defendant, the owner and sole occupant of a car, had dominion and control over drugs in a dashboard.
|
|||||
| Burris v. State, CACR05-1189,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support an aggravated robbery conviction under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-103 based on the corpus delicti rule where the evidence showed that defendant confessed to the crime, admitted thinking of the idea to rob the victim, took a weapon from a vehicle, and discarded stolen items in a location later disclosed to police.
|
|||||
| Cosgrove v. State, CACR05-1216,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was employed quite a few times over the period of several years and made regular payments to his father during this time, his suspended sentences for property crimes were properly revoked for failing to make payments on restitution, fines, and costs.
|
|||||
| Croston v. State, CACR05-881,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in requiring defendant to appear for trial in jail attire where he was offered civilian clothing but he refused to wear it because it was allegedly too small. After the State put on evidence of his refusal to change into the civilian clothing provided to him, defense counsel presented no evidence to dispute the refusal.
|
|||||
| Gaines v. State, CACR05-582,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the revocation of defendant's probation as the evidence was sufficient under a preponderance of evidence standard that defendant had harassed a victim in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-208 by frequently visiting her place of business and spending an inordinate amount of time around her apartment one day.
|
|||||
| Gault v. State, CACR05-921,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed defendant's convictions because there were no constitutional challenges to an officer's identification of defendant; thus, the officer's identification was sufficient evidence to support the finding that defendant was the individual who committed the crime.
|
|||||
| Givens v. Haybar, Inc., CA05-924,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to corporation in suit by guardians alleging that, upon brother's death, title to his land passed to his incapacitated sisters because at time of brother's death, he no longer held title to land; title had vested to State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-101(c) upon brother's failure to pay taxes.
|
|||||
| Gonder v. State, CACR 05-262,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 11.1 and the Fourth Amendment, trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress was not clearly erroneous because his consent to search was valid since 1) officer never stated that defendant was legally obligated to cooperate; and 2) officer denied ever threatening defendant or his family in order to get consent.
|
|||||
| Jennings v. State, CACR06-007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug convictions were affirmed because a police detective's comments were not the result of a question by the State designed to elicit testimony about defendant's post-arrest silence, and the State did not call attention to defendant's post-arrest silence or use it to impeach his testimony.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
