Court Opinion

ID: 9673546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:14:19.460982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:22.720918
License: Public Domain

James R. Cooper, Judge, concurring. I agree with the result in this case and with the reasoning of the majority on all points with the exception of Point II. I disagree with the majority opinion on this point in that it apparently holds that since there was no showing of a connection between the two fights the evidence could never have been admitted. I believe the rule is correctly stated in Price v. State, 267 Ark. 1172, 599 S.W. 2d 394 (1980), where the Court indicated that where evidence of other offenses was probative of the accused’s participation in the crime charged it should not be excluded unless it is so prejudicial that its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. In this case the testimony was highly contradictory as to the time frame between the two fights. What occurred during the first fight certainly, in my opinion, had probative value as to the offense charged against appellant here. However, I concur in the result reached because it is my opinion that the prejudicial effect of the testimony regarding the first fight outweighed its probative value and it should have been excluded on that basis. I am authorized to state that Judge Cloninger joins in this concurring opinion.