Deshazier v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Beth Gladden Coulson, Judge.
Appellant, Harrell Deshazier, Sr., argues two points for reversal of his conviction under the Omnibus DWI Act. The first point concerns the trial court’s refusal to grant appellant’s motion for a directed verdict, while the second point involves the sufficiency of the evidence. Because, as we noted in Nelke v. State, 19 Ark. App. 292, 720 S.W.2d 719 (1986), a motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will consider the two arguments as one. Nothing appellant has advanced has persuaded us that the trial court erred.
The record…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boone v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Lane v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
- Zones v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1985
- Holmes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1985
- Altes v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Roach v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1990