Legal Opinion

Lackey v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 9, 1984No. CR 83-161PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

The convictions of Stanley and Susan Lackey for rape have to be reversed because of the admission of inadmissiable and prejudicial evidence before the jury.

The trial judge first permitted the State to elicit evidence that the appellants had given marijuana to three children, aged five, six, and eleven. The judge then decided that the evidence was not admissible and admonished the jury to disregard it. The court should have granted a mistrial. For that reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

The testimony of the victim, a sixteen-year-old…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Alford v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
  2. Sweatt v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
  3. Urquhart v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  4. Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  5. Rios v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Moore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  2. Jackson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  3. Cole v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
  4. Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  5. Dillard v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993

14 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