Legal Opinion

Strickland v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 6, 1995No. CR 94-879Published

1Concurrence · DudleyRobert H. Dudley, Justice

I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion. This concurring opinion is written to state the reasons I would amend A.R.Cr.P Rule 36.21 to require that a defendant state to the trial court the missing evidence in a motion for acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence. Debate over use of the term “directed verdict” in a bench trial does not join the issue: The issue is whether specific grounds must be stated at trial in order to preserve an argument for appeal about sufficiency of the evidence, no matter what the motion is labeled.

This court repeatedly has taken the position…

Also in this document: Concurrence · Corbin.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Walker v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  2. Darrough v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  3. Marshall v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  4. Withers v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  5. Silvey Companies v. RileySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API