{ "id": 6137638, "name": "Brad TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. State", "decision_date": "1993-12-08", "docket_number": "CA CR 93-7", "first_page": "106", "last_page": "108", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "44 Ark. App. 106" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "866 S.W.2d 849" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-65-111", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ark. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900524 ], "year": 1882, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/38/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ark. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1897142 ], "year": 1883, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/40/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ark. 512", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900559 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1882, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513-14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/38/0512-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-89-103", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 253, "char_count": 3648, "ocr_confidence": 0.869, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.343491648654731e-08, "percentile": 0.4809058365951065 }, "sha256": "a72b0c33b12a25a4100f69d1b3f298a38d3e6dfb67f7159d808b176e3628baa1", "simhash": "1:899eb9a226d0c84d", "word_count": 622 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:08.484473+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Rogers, L, agrees.", "Cooper, J., concurs." ], "parties": [ "Brad TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John Mauzy Pittman, Judge.\nThe appellant, Brad Taylor, was convicted in municipal court of the misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated, first offense. He then appealed to circuit court. On the day set for his trial de novo in circuit court, appellant failed to appear. The circuit court declined to hold the trial in appellant\u2019s absence, dismissed the appeal, and ordered that the municipal court\u2019s sentence be put into execution. Appellant appeals from the circuit court\u2019s order, contending only that the court erred in denying his attorney\u2019s request that appellant be tried in absen-tia. We affirm.\nAppellant argues that, because the defendant in a misdemeanor case need not be present in order for his trial to be held, the trial court abused its discretion in not holding his trial despite his absence. Appellant cites only Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-89-103(b) (1987) in support of his argument. That code section provides, \u201cIf the indictment is for a misdemeanor, the trial may be had in the absence of the defendant.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nWe agree that the statute makes it permissible for a court to hold the trial for an accused misdemeanant in absentia. However, we cannot agree that it is mandatory. More than a century ago, this same statute was construed by the supreme court as making it discretionary with the trial court whether to hold such a trial, assuming that the accused consents to waive the right to be present. See Owen v. State, 38 Ark. 512 (1882). In Owen, the appellant was tried and convicted by a justice of the peace of malicious mischief, a misdemeanor. He appealed the conviction to circuit court. As in the present case, the appellant failed to appear for his trial in circuit court. Although his attorney did appear and offer to proceed in the appellant\u2019s absence, the circuit court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The supreme court affirmed, holding that, while the circuit court under those circumstances could have allowed the case to proceed to trial in the appellant\u2019s absence, it was not legally obliged to do so. The court further stated that holding one\u2019s trial in his absence is a practice not to be commended, especially where imprisonment is a possible punishment in the event of a conviction. The supreme court concluded:\nOn the failure of appellant to appear for trial in the prosecution of his appeal, as he was bound to do, the court might have ordered him brought in on bench warrant or capias. But the court thought proper, on such failure, to dismiss his appeal, which it had the discretion to do, and which left the judgment of the justice standing and to be enforced.\nOwen v. State, 38 Ark. at 513-14. See also Martin v. State, 40 Ark. 364 (1883); Bridges v. State, 38 Ark. 510 (1882).\nSimilarly, although appellant\u2019s attorney appeared in this case and requested that the trial be held, appellant was absent. Also, as in Owen, imprisonment is a possible punishment for the offense with which appellant had been charged. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-65-111(a) (1987). No argument is made that \u00a7 16-89-103(b) does not apply or that any other relief, such as a continuance, should have been granted. From our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion under the statute in declining to hold a trial and leaving the municipal court\u2019s judgment intact.\nAffirmed.\nRogers, L, agrees.\nCooper, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "John Mauzy Pittman, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Witt Law Firm, P.C., for appellant.", "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Brad TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 93-7\n866 S.W.2d 849\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered December 8, 1993\nWitt Law Firm, P.C., for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0106-01", "first_page_order": 128, "last_page_order": 130 }