Court Opinion

ID: 9660181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:07:11.118513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:21.355124
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. I concur with the result. I have not changed the view I expressed in Martin v. State, 261 Ark. 80, 547 S.W.2d 81 (1977). Therefore, I can find no “intent” or culpable mental state in the charge of first degree battery. I feel the prior convictions were admissible simply to rebut Vowell’s statement that the vehicular collision was an accident. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 404 (b); Enriquez v. U.S., 188 F.2d 313 (9th Cir. 1951). Purtle, J., joins in this concurrence.