{
  "id": 6137648,
  "name": "Leslie Ray SMITH v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. State",
  "decision_date": "1994-10-19",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 93-1364",
  "first_page": "83",
  "last_page": "85",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "47 Ark. App. 83"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "884 S.W.2d 632"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 3754,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "sha256": "8b1a4a5ccce3dd14721c0853a2c731bb62332716d0348881291eb8812b4feafe",
    "simhash": "1:b54aed13476c5828",
    "word_count": 637
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:43.647094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Pittman and Mayfield, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Leslie Ray SMITH v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John E. Jennings, Chief Judge.\nLeslie Ray Smith was found guilty by a Cleburne County jury of breaking or entering, a class D felony. He was sentenced to a term of four years imprisonment and fined $3,500.00. The sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict. We disagree and affirm.\nAt trial Carl Foust testified that he was the owner of the Home Town Car Wash in Heber Springs, Arkansas. In November and December of 1992, Foust began to notice that the dollar bill change machine at the car wash was coming up short on money. The machine would hold up to $200.00 in quarters. Finally, Foust set up an observation camera and photographed the defendant operating the dollar bill changer. Smith was inserting into the machine a dollar bill with a strand of dental floss glued to one corner to obtain quarters. He would then retrieve the bill from the machine using the dental floss.\nArkansas Code Annotated section 5-39-202, the statute under which the defendant was convicted, provides:\n(a) A person commits the offense of breaking or entering if for the purpose of committing a theft or felony he enters or breaks into any building, structure, vehicle, vault, safe, cash register, money vending machine, coin-operated amusement or vending machine, product dispenser, money depository, safety deposit box, coin telephone, coin box, fare box on a bus or other similar container, apparatus, or equipment.\nNo one argues that the defendant broke into the change machine; the issue is whether he \u201centered\u201d it. Appellant argues:\nThe testimony before the court, including video of the defendant in action, shows that he placed his dollar in the legally provided point of entry, and by sound, received his four quarters, and only then withdrew his dollar. The entire transaction from the deposit of the dollar to the payment of the quarters was lawful. The machine, due to a design defect, allowed the defendant to withdraw his dollar.\n[T]o sustain proof of entry as required by the Code the State was required to prove that the appellant \u201cunlawfully entered,\u201d physically with any part of his body, actually entered into any part of the coin machine, where he was not lawfully allowed.\nThe issue of the defendant\u2019s intent to commit a theft is irrelevant, if the defendant was lawfully where he was allowed, concluded a legal transaction with the machine, and only then withdrew his dollar bill. Such action does not constitute breaking or entering under the Arkansas Code.\nIn answering this argument the trial judge said, \u201cWere it not for that dental floss being attached to the dollar, you might have a valid argument.\u201d We agree.\nThe statute treats an entry into any \u201cmoney vending machine\u201d as the equivalent of an entry into any building, such as a home. The first definition of \u201center\u201d in the American Heritage Dictionary (2d College Ed.) is \u201cto come or go into.\u201d This is how we commonly think of \u201centry\u201d into a building or structure. The second listed definition is \u201cto penetrate; pierce,\u201d and the third is \u201cto introduce; insert.\u201d\nIn the case at bar the jury could find that the appellant penetrated the machine with the dental floss with the purpose of committing a theft. The statute does not require that appellant enter the machine \u201cphysically with any part of his body\u201d as opposed to using a tool.\nOur conclusion is that the trial court correctly denied the motion for a directed verdict.\nAffirmed.\nPittman and Mayfield, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John E. Jennings, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David Wisdom Harrod, Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Leslie Ray SMITH v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 93-1364\n884 S.W.2d 632\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered October 19, 1994\nDavid Wisdom Harrod, Public Defender, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0083-01",
  "first_page_order": 105,
  "last_page_order": 107
}