Court Opinion

ID: 9662686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:15:32.742635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:41.364636
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. I dissent for two reasons. First, to preserve my protest to the unconstitutionality of the offense titled first degree battery. See Martin v. State, 261 Ark. 80, 547 S.W.2d 81 (1977). Second, I dissent to point out that the prior convictions for DWI cannot be admitted “on cross-examination” purusant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 404 (b) (Repl. 1979). That rule, if available at all, means such evidence is admissible in the State’s case in chief. I agreed in Vowell it was admissible only because Vowell testified that the vehicular collision was an accident, and for no other reason. See Vowell v. State, 276 Ark. 258, 634 S.W.2d 118 (1982). Purtle, J., joins in this dissent.