{
  "id": 6141545,
  "name": "Willie THOMAS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thomas v. State",
  "decision_date": "1984-02-01",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 83-141",
  "first_page": "294",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ark. App. 294"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "663 S.W.2d 745"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "232 Ark. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1694103
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/232/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 S.W. 846",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 Ark. 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1366102
      ],
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/151/0515-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 Ark. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719845
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/242/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ark. App. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6141737
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/6/0286-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 4135,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.833,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3115652688631654
    },
    "sha256": "9c2ca7ea3f36ece1f62636709007c768ba3d7cfa300e7a596f6ab50ea7a0c6c9",
    "simhash": "1:211f5b047f226159",
    "word_count": 698
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:08.069200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cloninger and Corbin, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Willie THOMAS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "James R. Cooper, Judge.\nIn this criminal case, the appellant was convicted by a jury of theft of property and was sentenced to four years and six months in the Arkansas Department of Correction. From that conviction, comes this appeal.\nOn December 24, 1982, the appellant allegedly broke into and entered Mengarelli\u2019s store in Turrell, Arkansas, with the intent to commit theft. The appellant allegedly stole cigarettes valued at more than $100.00 with the intent to deprive the owner of them. After taking the cigarettes from Mengarelli\u2019s, the appellant allegedly transported them to Ricky Jackson\u2019s cafe in Turrell, then known as the Arcade, and attempted to sell them.\nAt the appellant\u2019s trial, a witness for the State testified that an unidentified person standing next to the appellant said that the appellant had cigarettes for sale, and that the appellant did not deny or otherwise acknowledge the statement. Counsel for the appellant objected to this testimony on the ground it was inadmissible hearsay. The trial judge overruled the objection, holding that it was a tacit admission by the appellant due to the fact that he failed to deny that he had the cigarettes for sale when the statement was mde. Such a failure to deny serves as an adoption of the statement in certain circumstances.\nThe Uniform Rules of Evidence, Rule 801 (d) (2) (ii), Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-1001 (Repl. 1979), provides that a statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is a statement in which that party has manifested a belief in its truth. Wilson v. City of Pine Bluff, 6 Ark. App. 286, 641 S.W.2d 33 (1982). This principle has been recognized in Arkansas prior to the adoption of the Uniform Rules of Evidence. See Burford v. State, 242 Ark. 377, 413 S.W.2d 670 (1967); Moore v. State, 151 Ark. 515, 236 S.W. 846 (1922). Before hearsay evidence of an implied admission can fit within this exception, it must have been shown that the accused heard the statement, that he understood it, and that he failed to deny it. Kagen and Tibbett v. State, 232 Ark. 189, 334 S.W.2d 865 (1960).\nIn Wilson v. City of Pine Bluff, we said:\nThe sole question in determining whether statements made by another person are admissible against a party as an admission by silence or acquiescence is whether a reasonable person, under the circumstances, would naturally have been expected to deny them, if the statements were untrue. Some of the factors which should be considered in determining whether a party has impliedly admitted the statements are:\n(1) The statement must have been heard by the party against whom it is offered;\n(2) it must have been understood by him;\n(3) the subject matter must have been within his personal knowledge;\n(4) he must have been physically and psychologically able to speak;\n(5) the speaker or his relationship to the party or event must be such as to reasonably expect a denial; and\n(6) the statement itself must be such that, if untrue, under the circumstances, it would have been denied.\nOther factors besides these may need to be considered, depending on the facts of a particular case. See, 4 J. Wigmore, Evidence \u00a7 1071-1073 (Chadbourn rev. 1972); C. McCormick, The Law of Evidence \u00a7 270 (2d ed. 1972).\nIn the case at bar, the testimony indicated the appellant was present, and was standing within four feet of the person making the statement. Further, the appellant failed to object to the statement or otherwise deny that he was attempting to sell the cigarettes. On these facts, adequate foundational facts were presented to the trial court so as to render the statements admissible. The trier of fact could reasonably infer that the appellant heard and understood the statements, and that, had the statements been untrue, he would have responded with either a denial or an explanation.\nAffirmed.\nCloninger and Corbin, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "James R. Cooper, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ken Cook, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Willie THOMAS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 83-141\n663 S.W.2d 745\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered February 1, 1984\nKen Cook, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0294-01",
  "first_page_order": 316,
  "last_page_order": 319
}