Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Martin v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 10, 1986No. CR 86-83Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDarrell Hickman, Justice

My objection only relates to remanding this case for a retrial on the battery charge. We are violating our own procedural rules and placing this defendant in jeopardy twice.

The murder and battery charges were required to be tried together because they were of a similar character (both shootings) based on “. . . a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.” A.R.Cr.P. Rule 21.1. Indeed the second shooting occurred immediately after the first, and the defense is so interrelated with the facts of the first they cannot be separated in the second trial…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Cozzaglio v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  3. Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API