Legal Opinion

Menard v. City of Carlisle

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 8, 1992No. CR 91-282PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

We affirm the judgment of conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants. The primary issue is whether A.R.E. Rule 615, the witness sequestration rule, is waived when counsel fails to ask for “the rule” before the testimony begins.

The State’s first witness in its case-in-chief had answered a few preliminary questions when appellant’s counsel asked for the rule. The city attorney objected and said it was “too late now.” The appellant’s attorney responded, “Why? I mean, the matter was not addressed before we began the trial of the matter.” Nothing more…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Dixon v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977
  2. Fretwell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  3. Sumlin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  4. Parette v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
  5. Moore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Burns v. BurnsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  2. Hobbs v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1993
  3. Thomas v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1999
  4. Burns v. BurnsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  5. Interstate Oil and Supply Co. v. Troutman Oil Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1998

1 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