Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Williams v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 12, 1997No. CR 96-848Published

1ConcurrenceRobert L. Brown, Justice

I concur in this opinion but write to emphasize that I would not consider the abstract in this case to be flagrantly deficient under Supreme Court Rule 4-2 merely because the judgment and commitment order for Houston Williams was erroneously described. Furthermore, even if the judgment and commitment order had not been abstracted, I would not consider the abstract to be fatal to this appeal.

The abstract in the Houston Williams brief contains the jury verdict and the sentencing by the trial court. Neither the judgment nor sentence is at issue in this appeal. This situation is unlike the civil…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Wallace v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  3. Winters v. EldersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  4. Jolly v. HartjeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
  5. Mayo v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996

6 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