Breakfield v. State, CR77-231
| Decision Date | 01 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. CR77-231,No. 2,CR77-231,2 |
| Citation | 263 Ark. 398,566 S.W.2d 729 |
| Parties | Wilson BREAKFIELD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Kearney & Kearney, Magnolia, for appellant.
Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen. by Joseph H. Purvis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
We reverse this criminal case because there is no substantial evidence to support the conviction of Wilson Breakfield, Jr., for interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties. Breakfield argues, among other things, that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction on this charge, and we must agree. It appears the state simply charged Breakfield with the wrong offense, as contended by appellant.
Breakfield's brother had been arrested by the Lewisville City Marshal, Victor Knight, and placed in the Lafayette County jail. Within minutes after Breakfield's brother was placed in jail, Breakfield went to the jail to see his brother. There were three police officers in the office at that time: Knight; the Chief of Police of Waldo, Arkansas; and an Arkansas state policeman. According to the Waldo Chief of Police, Breakfield said, "Why did you arrest my brother?" Knight replied, "How old is your brother?" Breakfield said, "Twenty-two or twenty-three." Knight said,
Breakfield testified that when he was told to leave he left without causing any trouble. Knight testified that he had to order Breakfield to leave the office and when Breakfield refused he was informed that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct. Knight said that he could not effect an arrest; Breakfield had left the office and it was necessary to pursue him. Outside the office Breakfield and Knight had another encounter. According to Knight he told Breakfield he was under arrest and Breakfield put his hand in his rear pocket stating that he would kill him. This statement was apparently not heard by the other two officers. Knight wrestled with Breakfield and finally Breakfield was subdued with the assistance of the other officers. Breakfield was charged with violation of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-2804 (Repl.1977), interference with a police officer performing his official duties.
The new criminal code also has a provision for resisting arrest. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-2803 (Repl.1977). Before the adoption of the new criminal code there was no statute defining resisting arrest, as such. Such misconduct was usually charged under statutes defining obstructing or resisting an officer, assaulting an officer or threatening an officer. See Commentary to Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-2803.
A study of these statutes and their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hegler v. State
...will be taken as intended which is not clearly expressed. All doubts will be resolved in favor of the defendant. Breakfield v. State, 263 Ark. 398, 566 S.W.2d 729 (1978); Stuart v. State, 222 Ark. 102, 257 S.W.2d 372 The State of Georgia has a DWI statute very closely resembling our own sta......
-
Clayborn v. State
...definition of deviate sexual activity. The argument is without merit. Criminal statutes must be strictly construed. Breakfield v. State, 263 Ark. 398, 566 S.W.2d 729 (1978). Under our prior law these criminal acts had separate names; rape by sexual intercourse was termed rape and rape by de......
-
Davidson v. State
...law is clear that criminal statutes must be strictly construed, with doubts resolved in favor of the defendant. See Breakfield v. State, 263 Ark. 398, 566 S.W.2d 729 (1978). What militates against an interpretation that obtaining the property is not required is the fact that the degree of t......
-
Gosnell v. State, CR
...Knapp v. State, 283 Ark. 346, 676 S.W.2d 729 (1984); Clayborn v. State, 278 Ark. 533, 647 S.W.2d 433 (1983); Breakfield v. State, 263 Ark. 398, 566 S.W.2d 729 (1978). The reason a prior conviction under the Youthful Offender Alternative Service Act of 1975 cannot be used to enhance a senten......