Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smoak v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 15, 2011No. CR 11-71Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDonald L. Corbin, Justice

While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction, I disagree with the majority’s decision to reverse and remand this case because Appellant failed to properly preserve the entrapment issue for our review.

It is a well-settled principle of appellate jurisprudence that this court will not review an allegation that a circuit court erred in failing to give an instruction where the appellant failed to proffer such instruction. E.g., Davis v. State, 2009 Ark. 478, 348 S.W.3d 553; Robertson v. State, 2009 Ark. 430, 347 S.W.3d 460;…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mathews v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2009
  3. Hart v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
  4. Wallace v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  5. Young v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992

3 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