Britton v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 07 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Parties | Billy Joe BRITTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 93-832. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John L. Kearney, Pine Bluff, for appellant.
Sherry L. Daves, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
On April 7, 1993, Billy Joe Britton was convicted as a habitual for the delivery of a controlled substance. At trial, the state offered evidence that, on October 14, 1989, Officer Willie Robinson, an undercover investigator, and a confidential informant made a controlled buy from Britton of one small plastic bag of cocaine for twenty dollars. Britton was not charged with the offense until the state arrested him on August 19, 1992, and filed an information on September 11, 1992. The original and a later amended information filed on March 10, 1993, both reflected the date of the offense was October 14, 1991. The first amended information added that Britton was a habitual offender. On April 6, 1993, the day before Britton's trial, the state again amended the prior information to reflect that Britton's alleged criminal offense occurred on October 14, 1989.
For reversal, Britton presents four points, but none of them are properly preserved on appeal. He claims that (1) the state's information as amended did not correctly charge him with delivery of cocaine or as a habitual, (2) the delay in bringing the charges prejudiced him, (3) he was improperly denied the testimony of his sole alibi witness, and (4) a prison photograph of him was improperly displayed to the jury. As pointed out by the state, the trial court's rulings on each of these objections are fatally absent from the abstract of record. Linell v. State, 283 Ark. 162, 671 S.W.2d 741 (1984). 1 Our rule is clear that, without proper abstracting, seven justices would be constrained to pore through the sole record of the case on file with the clerk of the supreme court in search of the error(s) propounded by the defense. We have said repeatedly, and our rule so states, that we will not go to the record in search of prejudicial error. Haynes v. State, 313 Ark. 407, 855 S.W.2d 313 (1993).
Besides not having the trial court's rulings before us, we must also mention the extreme difficulty we have in understanding or reaching the errors assigned in this appeal because of the abbreviated or limited abstract provided the court. Britton's abstract consists of nine pages and omits pertinent pleadings and testimony set out in a transcript which contains 286 pages. Such omissions prevent us from having a full and fair understanding of the arguments made by the parties in this appeal. For example, much of Britton's argument for seeking reversal involves his contention that he was misled to believe up until the trial date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tedder v. Am. Railcar Indus., Inc.
... ... “In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a diversity case, we apply state law.” Burke v. Deere & Co., 6 F.3d 497, 511 (8th Cir.1993). Under Arkansas law, the conditional nature of an expert's testimony ... ...
-
Douthitt v. State, CR
...We have said repeatedly, and our rule so states, that we will not go to the record in search of prejudicial error. Britton v. State, 316 Ark. 219, 870 S.W.2d 762 (1994). Douthitt's second argument is that Ark.Code Ann. § 5-26-202 (1987), the statute governing incest, does not provide for eq......
-
Davis v. State
...v. State, 319 Ark. 709, 894 S.W.2d 583 (1995). See, e.g., Franklin v. State, 318 Ark. 99, 884 S.W.2d 246 (1994); Britton v. State, 316 Ark. 219, 870 S.W.2d 762 (1994). When an abstract is so deficient that we cannot discern what happened in the Trial Court, we must affirm. Franklin v. State......
-
Coney v. State, CR
...the material parts of the record be abstracted. See, e.g., Franklin v. State, 318 Ark. 99, 884 S.W.2d 246 (1994); Britton v. State, 316 Ark. 219, 870 S.W.2d 762 (1994). ...