{
  "id": 6138456,
  "name": "Johnnie E. DAVIS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. State",
  "decision_date": "1992-05-06",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 91-116",
  "first_page": "115",
  "last_page": "117",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 Ark. App. 115"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "828 S.W.2d 863"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "24 Ark. App. 70",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137250
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/24/0070-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ark. App. 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6138346
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/36/0120-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 3288,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.88,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29471583092296116
    },
    "sha256": "182a5fdcbdaa003f28935b1a6e184804f6264a31f6ec3539da4614bda8f35fba",
    "simhash": "1:899a90efc0e8bf8b",
    "word_count": 545
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:25.403717+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cracraft, C.J., and Mayfield, J., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Johnnie E. DAVIS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "William Enfield, Special Judge.\nAppellant was charged with aggravated robbery and theft of property. The charges arose from a convenience store robbery by two black males, one carrying a gun, on the evening of June 25, 1989. Appellant\u2019s defense was alibi. The clerk at the convenience store was unable to identify appellant as one of the robbers during a photographic line-up.\nA police officer testified on direct examination that she had contacted Beverly Boone, a girlfriend of the admitted robber, Thomas Wayne Cobb, pursuant to an anonymous telephone tip and Ms. Boone told the officer that appellant and Cobb were together on the night of the robbery. This testimony was objected to on the grounds of hearsay and the objection was sustained by the court.\nIn spite of the court\u2019s ruling the prosecutor returned to the subject on redirect examination. Over appellant\u2019s hearsay objection, the court permitted the officer to testify that she had learned from Ms. Boone that the appellant was present when Cobb had given her money of significant amounts and denominations about two hours after the robbery.\nRule 801(c) of Arkansas Rules of Evidence defines hearsay as:\na statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\nCertainly, the testimony admitted here was hearsay. Rule 802 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence makes hearsay inadmissible, except as provided by law or the rules of evidence. None of the exceptions applied to the facts here.\nThe lower court based its ruling on a view that appellant had \u201copened the door.\u201d In other words, he waived his right to object to the hearsay by initiating the inquiry. But the record shows that the prosecutor, not appellant, brought up the subject of appellant\u2019s presence by opening the line of questions to the police officer, both on direct examination and redirect examination. Appellant objected both times. The judge correctly sustained the first objection but erred when he overruled the second objection.\nThe question remains whether the court\u2019s error was harmless. Although Cobb testified that the appellant was with him and participated in the robbery, it was shown that Cobb had a previous felony conviction, and the clerk at the store could not identify appellant. We cannot be certain how much weight the jury gave to the hearsay evidence, but it was certainly intended to counteract appellant\u2019s only defense, that of alibi. This placed the jury in the position of deciding whether to believe appellant and his witnesses, or the testimony of Cobb bolstered by the secondhand testimony of an absent witness whose credibility and accuracy were impliedly supported by a police officer. This is exactly the type of thing the hearsay rule is intended to prevent. The error was not harmless. See Harris v. State, 36 Ark. App. 120, 819 S.W.2d 30 (1991); Pennington v. State, 24 Ark. App. 70, 749 S.W.2d 680 (1988).\nReversed and remanded.\nCracraft, C.J., and Mayfield, J., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "William Enfield, Special Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert R. Hanna, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Chad Farris, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Johnnie E. DAVIS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 91-116\n828 S.W.2d 863\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Special Division II\nOpinion delivered May 6, 1992\nAlbert R. Hanna, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Chad Farris, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0115-01",
  "first_page_order": 135,
  "last_page_order": 137
}