Arkansas, May, 2006, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Arkansas - May 31, 2006

Rhodes v. State, CACR04-807, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Although a court erred by admitting hearsay at defendant's probation revocation proceeding because the State offered no explanation as to why the witness was unavailable, the error was harmless; the court's authority under Ark. Code Ann. ? 5-34-309 to impose the maximum sentence was not conditioned on the nature of the subsequent violation.

Search Cases for Free

Sisk v. State, CACR06-8, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. ? 5-64-1102(a)(1) (1997), where defendant had purchased camp fuel and pseudoephedrine on the same day at different stores; the odor of a methamphetamine lab emanated from both defendant and his passenger.

Search Cases for Free

Stiggers v. State, CACR05-1399, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where victim testified that defendant was the perpetrator of a shooting, a neighbor testified that the victim and one other person were outside of a car when shots were fired, and evidence showed that a fatal shot to another victim was fired from the backseat of a car, convictions under Ark. Code Ann. ?? 5-10-102(a)(2), 5-13-201(a)(1) were upheld.

Search Cases for Free

Walton v. State, CACR03-395, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In a drug case, the State was relieved from its obligation to produce a material witness during a motion to suppress evidence because defendant did not make any claims of coercion relating to a police statement until after the motion had been denied.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal