Court Opinion

ID: 9778416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:03:48.804823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:08.570399
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, concurring. I agree with the result and all that is said in the majority opinion. I should like to point out, however, that Rowland v. State, 262 Ark. 783, 561 S.W. 2d 304, is probably more directly to the point on conditions on admissibility of evidence of prior sales of controlled substances where the charge is possession with intent to deliver than Cary v. State, 259 Ark. 510, 534 S.W. 2d 230. But it is also true that there was a genuine, not fictitious, issue of fact as to intent in Rowland, and it was clearly recognized that relevancy may turn upon the question of remoteness in time - a matter addressing itself to the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge.