Court Opinion

ID: 7822346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:59:07.0867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:42.528019
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. This case should be compared to the case of Roberts v. State, 278 Ark. 550, 648 S.W.2d 44 (1983); a case which is inexplicably ignored by the majority. Here there is no question that the statement was admitted as substantive evidence and not for purposes of impeachment. Therefore, the fact the statement was read to the jury is irrelevant. If it had been used to impeach, it could have been read. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 613.