Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Howard

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 15, 2000No. CR 99-989, CR 98-107Published

1DissentTom Glaze, Justice

We should review this case tice, App. P. — Crim. 3(a)(1). It is the type of case this court has reviewed in the past. See State v. Tucker, 268 Ark. 427, 597 S.W.2d 584 (1980); State v. Cashion, 260 Ark. 148, 539 S.W.2d 423 (1976). A significant issue in this appeal requires the interpretation of seven circumstances listed in Rule 16.2(e) as applied to rural property made the subject to a search warrant which contains descriptive errors. That rule provides that a motion to suppress evidence shall be granted only if the court finds that the violation upon which it is based was substantial.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. TuckerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  2. State v. CashionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API