Legal Opinion

Hamm v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 3, 1988No. CR 88-35PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

The appellant made a confession which was recorded on a microcassette and then transcribed by a police secretary. The confession was erased when the tape was reused. Consequently, the State was unable to provide the appellant with the recording of the confession for the purpose of comparing the recording with the transcript. The appellant moved to suppress the statement and expressly cited A.R.Cr.P. Rule 17.1 (a)(ii) and Williamson v. State, 263 Ark. 401, 565 S.W.2d 415 (1978).…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Berna v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
  2. Free v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
  3. Freeman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
  4. Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  5. Mitchell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Misskelley v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  2. Humphrey v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
  3. Durham v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  4. Conner v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  5. Roberts v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003

38 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