Case Title: Moncrief v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
J.T. MONCRIEF v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-166                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 24, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- flagrantly deficient abstract -- scattered
     references are not substitute for proper abstract. -- From
     appellant's flagrantly deficient abstract, the supreme court
     could neither tell whether appellant, who challenged the
     sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, had actually moved for
     a directed verdict nor discern the content and basis of his
     motions; the supreme court reiterated that, although
     appellant's statement of the facts and argument referred to
     motions for a directed verdict and to a denial of those
     motions, such scattered references are not a substitute for a
     proper abstract.

2.   Appeal & error -- flagrantly deficient abstract -- no showing
     that directed-verdict motions were made. -- Although the State
     did not deny that appellant had made motions for a directed
     verdict, the supreme court did not address the merits of the
     appeal because appellant's abstract did not show in any way
     that motions for a directed verdict were made; the supreme
     court affirmed for violation of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6).

3.   Appeal & error -- record confined to that which is abstracted.
     -- Although appellant abstracted two motions to dismiss,
     nothing in his abstract showed that he ever obtained a ruling
     by the trial court on his motions; the record on appeal is
     confined to that which is properly abstracted.

4.   Appeal & error -- burden of obtaining ruling is on movant --
     unresolved objections waived. -- The burden of obtaining a
     ruling is on the movant; objections and questions left
     unresolved are waived and may not be relied upon on appeal;
     both the arguments made to the trial court and the trial
     court's ruling are vital to the appellate court's decision on
     review; without the trial judge's ruling or order, the
     appellate court has no basis for a decision; hence, the
     supreme court also affirmed on the issue of appellant's motion
     to dismiss because Moncrief's abstract was flagrantly
     deficient on the point.

5.   Appeal & error -- flagrantly deficient abstract -- appellant
     failed to abstract objection to seating of disqualified
     prosecutor. -- Where appellant failed to abstract any
     objection or ruling regarding the seating of the self-
     disqualified prosecutor at the counsel table with the special
     prosecutor, and since failure to make a timely objection
     waives the objection, and the record on appeal is limited to
     that which is abstracted, the supreme court affirmed on the
     point.

6.   Appeal & error -- flagrantly deficient abstract -- appellant
     failed to abstract any response or objection to State's
     petition for removal from office. -- Where appellant's
     abstract did not contain any response or objection to the
     State's petition for removal from office, the supreme court
     did not address the point.

7.   Appeal & error -- even constitutional issues are waived unless
     raised before trial court. -- Where appellant argued that his
     removal from office was unconstitutional, the supreme court
     did not address the issue because the record on appeal is
     confined to that which has been abstracted, and appellant's
     abstract in the instant case did not reflect that he raised
     the constitutional argument before the trial court; even
     constitutional arguments are waived unless raised before a
     trial court; moreover, without an abstract of the hearing, the
     appellate court was left in the dark concerning what
     transpired before the trial court.


8.   Appeal & error -- appellant's failure to move to supplement or
     substitute abstract prior to submission of case fatal to
     appeal. -- Appellant's failure to move to supplement or
     substitute his abstract prior to the submission of his case
     for decision was fatal to his appeal.


     Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court; H.A. Taylor, Judge;
affirmed.
     Winfred A. Trafford and Green, Henry & Green, by: J.W. Green,
Jr., for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Sandy Moll, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
for appellee.

     Robert L. Brown, Justice.Associate Justice Robert L. Brown
June 24, 1996   *ADVREP*SC10*






J.T. MONCRIEF,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,
                     APPELLEE,

CR 96-166




APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR 94-78-2,
HON. H.A. TAYLOR, JUDGE,




AFFIRMED.






     This appeal involves a charge brought against appellant J.T.
Moncrief for violation of Ark. Code Ann.  16-15-109 (Repl. 1994),
which makes it unlawful for a county official to develop an
"interest" in a county contract.  Following a jury trial, Moncrief
was convicted of the charge, a misdemeanor, and fined $500.  As a
result of the conviction, he was later removed from his office of
County Judge of Lincoln County pursuant to  16-15-109(b).  He
appeals both the judgment against him and his removal from office. 
We do not address the merits of the appeal because we find the
appellant's abstract of the record to be flagrantly deficient under
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b).  For that reason, we affirm.
     On July 6, 1995, this case was tried to a jury.  The testimony
at trial was that after an ice storm in Lincoln County, the county
received federal financial assistance (FEMA funds) to make repairs
and clean up the roads.  Moncrief reviewed bids for the project and
chose Hal Garrison as the contractor to perform the work. 
Garrison, however, needed a performance bond before he could
finalize the arrangement with Lincoln County.  In order to obtain
the bond, Garrison went to the Bank of Star City with Moncrief and
Weldon Wynn, a bond writer, and sought a $4,000 dollar loan from
the bank to be used for a ten percent cash bond.  Moncrief assured
a lending officer of the bank, Mark Owen, that he would make sure
that the bank got paid and that there would be no risk in the
bank's making the loan to Hal Garrison.  Moncrief then signed a
personal guaranty on July 1, 1994, to repay the $4,000 promissory
note made by Garrison, and in return, the bank issued a cashier's
check in the amount of $4,000 payable jointly to Garrison and
Moncrief.
     Moncrief never revealed to the Lincoln County Quorum Court
that he had guaranteed the note for Garrison and, in fact, told
Quorum Court members when asked that he was not directly
responsible for Garrison's obtaining the $4,000.  Garrison paid off
the note, and the bank employee handling the loan testified that
Moncrief never received any money or other benefit from his
involvement in the Hal Garrison loan.
     The jury returned a guilty verdict and fixed Moncrief's
sentence at a fine of $500.00.  On July 11, 1995, the trial court
entered an order in accordance with the verdict.  On that same day,
the State filed a petition for removal of appellant as county judge
pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-15-109(b) (Repl. 1994).  The
following day, the trial court entered an order granting the
petition.
     Moncrief first contends that there was no evidence that he was
"interested" in any contract or transaction made or entered into in
Lincoln County as required by  16-15-109(a)(1), and thus, the
trial court erred in not entering a judgment of acquittal.  The
State responds that this point must be affirmed because Moncrief
did not abstract any motion for a directed verdict or the trial
court's ruling, all of which is in violation of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
2(a)(6).  The State is correct.
     In Taylor v. State, 299 Ark. 123,