Court Opinion

ID: 9644523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:58:35.813704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:37.052908
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, concurring. The question of the validity of A.R.E. 803(25) was not raised in this case. In his concurring opinion in Johnson v. State, 292 Ark. 632, 732 S.W.2d 817 (1987), Justice Dudley noted that this court had asserted its authority to adopt the Uniform Rules of Evidence as rules of the court and that it has not adopted Rule 803(25). See also Justice Purtle’s dissenting opinion in Johnson v. State, supra. We have, in this case, again escaped the separation of powers problem created by the legislative adoption of Rule 803(25) subsequent to this court’s adoption of the Uniform Rules of Evidence which did not contain that rule or anything like it. I write separately only to restate the caveat contained in the opinion by Justice Dudley.