Court Opinion

ID: 9650498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:40:20.76778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:22.427049
License: Public Domain

Andree LAYTON Roaf, Judge, concurring. I concur in the result reached in this case, but do not agree that we should address Hughes’s first point on appeal as a sufficiency argument. Hughes’s argument on appeal is “that the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of certain physical evidence that was not directly tied to the appellant.” Moreover, Hughes’s abstract is not adequate for us to consider a sufficiency argument. However, I concur in the discussion and disposition of the evidentiary aspect of this argument and agree that we should affirm on this point. SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING CA CR 00-748 46 S.W.3d 538 Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division III Opinion delivered October 3, 2001