Court Opinion

ID: 9777395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:09:23.564402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:53.538142
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J., concurring. The judgment is rightly subject to affirmance on the merits, but at tlie same time tlie ease presents an appropriate occasion for us to call attention to an aspect of Rule 9 tliat is not infrequently overlooked by counsel. Rule 9 (d) requires that the appellant’s abstract consist of a condensation of such material parts of the record as are necessary to an understanding of the ease. An abstract that is a mere reprint of the record, or of a substantial part of it, may be such a violation of the Rule as to preclude the court from reversing the judgment on its merits. Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 239 Ark. 141, 387 S.W. 2d 605 (1965). This case falls in that category. The appellant’s “abstract” includes about 200 printed pages of testimony reproduced verbatim, in question and answer form. Even though the appellant in a felony case is not required to abstract the record, Rule 11 (f), if he undertakes to do so he is expected to comply with our rules. It would be impossible for us to keep our docket current if we were compelled to read mere reprints of the records in the eases submitted for decision. I think that in the long run it would be a disservice to the bar for us not to call attention occasionally, especially in affirming a judgment on the merits, to such a clear-cut violation of Rule 9 as that which occurred in this instance.