Legal Opinion · Dissent

Walker v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 28, 1991No. 90-243Published

1DissentDavid Newbern, Justice

The petition for rehearing in this case makes it clear that the Court’s original opinion unduly emphasized the “moving party” rationale. The statute requires a hearing to determine whether there is “clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile should be tried as an adult” even if there is no “moving party.” Again the Court ignores the import of the words “should be tried as an adult” which explains the issue to be decided. Again I contend those words show the General Assembly’s intent that the State have the burden. That becomes even clearer in light of a point made in Walker’s petition for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Superior Improvement Co. v. Mastic Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  2. Gibson v. BolingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  3. Midgett v. Arkansas Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API