Arkansas, June, 2005, 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 - June 8, 2005

Cluck v. State, CA CR 04-710, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, June 8, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: In a drug case, a court erred by admitting evidence, Ark. R. Evid. 404(b), of items found in an unrelated search of defendant's home because the so-called rebuttal testimony did not "merely" respond to defendant's contention that the alleged contraband had legitimate uses, but delved into the details of the prior crime.

Search Cases for Free

Evans v. Evans, CA04-1268, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court's awarding custody of the parties' minor child to the father was not clearly erroneous where the mother failed to request specific findings as to the matter of keeping siblings together, the child's best interest would be served by awarding the father custody, and custody was not awarded to the father in order to punish the mother.

Search Cases for Free

Grissom v. State, CACR 04-1396, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's challenges on four points were not properly preserved and could not be addressed by the appellate court as he did not move for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case, as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1. Defendant did not preserve other points of appeal. It was proper to charge defendant under Ark. Code Ann. ? 5-14-108.

Search Cases for Free

Lytle v. State, CACR 04-844, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND FOUR, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In a case involving over-possession of pseudoephedrine under Ark. Code Ann. ? 5-64-1101(a) (Supp. 2003), there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction because defendant exercised care and control over the items in question, despite the fact that a van was not his, and the drugs were found under the passenger's seat.

Search Cases for Free

Morris v. State, CACR04-840, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant was not entitled to a change of venue in his murder trial because a review of the voir dire proceeding showed that an impartial jury was selected and defendant's counsel stated that the jury was satisfactory; thus, defendant did not show that a fair trial was not likely to be had in the county.

Search Cases for Free

Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Harden, CA04-746, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: A trial court erred by not using the family support chart amount for two dependents, the number of children who were the subject of the support order, as a basis for determining the amount of support to be set; it should not have considered the chart amount for the father's total of four dependents, then halved it.

Search Cases for Free

Parker v. Harp's Food Store, Inc., CA04-1210, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to a grocery store in plaintiff's negligence action claiming that she was injured when she fell over a ledge in the handicapped parking area outside the store because there was a lack of evidence regarding any violation of the standard of care in the pleadings, motions, and affidavits before the trial judge.

Search Cases for Free

Powell v. State, CACR04-540, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial during voir dire because prosecutor's statement did not go beyond the assertion that only defendant had knowledge of his own motives, and did not imply anything regarding defendant's election to not testify at trial. Significantly, defendant did not request that the jury be admonished.

Search Cases for Free

Rameriz v. State, CA CR 04-212, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, June 8, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Police were not required to inform defendant of every possible offense that he could have been charged with when he was questioned about his sexual relationship with a minor; therefore, a waiver of Miranda rights was voluntary under the Fifth Amendment.

Search Cases for Free

Reed v. State, CA CR 04-1224, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: There was substantial evidence to support defendant's conviction for intimidating witness because, after learning that the witness told police that she observed defendant's son commit murder, defendant threatened to kill the witness, burn her house down, and harm her children. Defendant expressed her anger towards the witness on several occasions.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal