 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ramaker v. State, No. CR 04-256,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 2, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner claimed court erred by ordering repair of shotgun that killed the victim. However, on direct appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that any error was harmless; in any event, said claim did not fall within the ambit of habeas action under 2001 Ark. Acts 1780, as it was unrelated to any scientific testing to demonstrate actual innocence.
|
|||||
| Stenhouse v. State, CR 04-1207,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 2, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for capital murder, under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-10-101(a)(4) (2003), was affirmed because there was ample testimony to support the jury's finding of premeditated and deliberated capital murder, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion as to the striking of African-American jurors or in denying defendant a continuance.
|
|||||
| Waller v. State, No. CR 05-426,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 2, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not responsibility of clerk or anyone other than inmate to perfect appeal by filing record within 90 days pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 5(a). He failed to do so, and failed to state a good cause for not tendering record in timely manner. Thus, his motion for belated appeal, which was treated as a motion for a rule on clerk, was denied.
|
|||||
| Wright v. State, No. CA CR 02-419,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 2, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because inmate had not alleged that there was any specific documentary evidence in trial transcript to support a postconviction claim or that there was a postconviction remedy available to him, he failed to show that the transcript lodged on appeal should be provided to him at no cost; thus, his motion for a transcript at public expense was denied.
|
|||||
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. |
