Case Title: State v. Stephenson

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR97-365

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE of Arkansas v. Larry James STEPHENSON

CR 97-365                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 13, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- appeal by State -- when accepted. -- The supreme
     court accepts appeals by the State when its holding would be
     important to the correct and uniform administration of the
     criminal law; as a matter of practice, the court has only
     taken appeals that are narrow in scope and that involve the
     interpretation of law.  

2.   Appeal & error -- appeal by State -- when rejected. -- Where an appeal
     does not present an issue of interpretation of the criminal
     rules with widespread ramifications, the supreme court has
     held that such an appeal does not involve the correct and
     uniform administration of the law; appeals are not allowed
     merely to demonstrate the fact that the trial court erred.

3.   Appeal & error -- appeal by State from directed verdict not permitted when
     sole issue is sufficiency of evidence. -- The State is not permitted
     to appeal from a directed verdict acquitting the defendant
     when the sole issue is the sufficiency of the evidence of the
     defendant's guilt; the question of the legal sufficiency of
     the evidence in a given case constitutes a question of law for
     the decision of the court, but it cannot become a precedent
     for application in another case because of the varying state
     of facts in different cases, and therefore the decision of
     that question, even if it is one of law, is not important in
     the uniform administration of the criminal law.  

4.   Appeal & error -- appeal by State -- contention based on sufficiency of
     evidence not proper basis -- appeal dismissed. -- Where the State did
     not contend that the trial court misinterpreted the law but,
     instead, merely contended that the trial court erred in
     directing a verdict in favor of appellee because there was
     sufficient evidence presented to convict him of the charges,
     the supreme court held that such a contention was not a proper
     basis for an appeal by the State and dismissed the appeal.  

5.   Appeal & error -- appeal by State -- supreme court does not search for
     error where determination would not set precedent. -- It is not for the
     supreme court to engage in a search for error where any
     determination by the court would not set precedent or serve as
     a guide in future prosecutions; the supreme court could not
     say that the trial judge improperly weighed the credibility of
     the evidence, as opposed to viewing the evidence as merely
     being insufficient to sustain a conviction on the charges.


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; Marion
Humphrey, Judge; appeal dismissed.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Brad Newman, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellant.
     Mosby Law Firm, by: Lori A. Mosby, for appellee.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Appellee Larry James Stephenson was charged as a habitual
offender with possession of drug paraphernalia and maintaining a
drug premises.  Appellee was tried by a jury on December 4, 1996. 
The case never reached the jury, however, because the trial court
directed a verdict for Appellee on both charges at the close of the
State's evidence.  The State has filed this appeal.  The threshold
issue in this case is whether the State is permitted to appeal from
the trial court's order directing a verdict for Appellee. 
Resolution of this preliminary issue requires our construction of
Ark. R. App. P.--Crim. 3(c); our jurisdiction is thus pursuant to
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(17)(vi).  We accept appeals by the State
when our holding would be important to the correct and uniform
administration of the criminal law.  Rule 3(c).  As a matter of
practice, this court has only taken appeals "which are narrow in
scope and involve the interpretation of law."  State v. Banks, 322
Ark. 344, 345,