{
  "id": 6137778,
  "name": "Robert WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1995-06-28",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 94-209",
  "first_page": "98",
  "last_page": "99",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ark. App. 98"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "902 S.W.2d 253"
    }
  ],
  "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": 231,
    "char_count": 3369,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.864,
    "sha256": "a7cf46a430995a7ad9daa6f8f825fa36f872084c683a18c4e6b8076ceb23bcd0",
    "simhash": "1:2d2cd086f89f0a2a",
    "word_count": 546
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:44:23.701832+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Robbins and Mayfield, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Robert WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "James R. Cooper, Judge.\nThe appellant was convicted in a jury trial of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to twenty-five years in the Arkansas Department of Correction and fined $25,000. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of his defense witness. We agree and reverse and remand.\nDuring jury selection at the appellant\u2019s trial, each party was asked to identify its witnesses. The prosecutor announced its potential witnesses and the appellant\u2019s counsel indicated that he did not intend to call any witnesses. After the jurors were chosen, the trial court proposed administering the oath to all the potential witnesses. The trial court asked the appellant\u2019s counsel whether he had any witnesses who needed to be sworn. The appellant\u2019s counsel responded that he did have a witness who needed to be sworn and explained that he had just been notified of the witness. The trial court then directed this witness to take the oath with the other potential witnesses. The witness was apparently not identified, and the prosecution did not object or inquire about the witness or his identity.\nAt the conclusion of the State\u2019s case, the appellant\u2019s counsel indicated that he planned to call this witness, Mr. Jerry King, to testify. This was the only witness the appellant called on his behalf. The prosecutor objected to Mr. King\u2019s testimony because the witness had not been disclosed during the jury voir dire or discovery. The trial court subsequently allowed the prosecutor to voir dire Mr. King to determine the nature of his testimony. Mr. King testified that he is the appellant\u2019s brother and was present in the appellant\u2019s house on the night the appellant allegedly sold cocaine to an undercover officer. He testified to events of that night and stated that the appellant did not sell any drugs to the officer. The prosecution objected to the witness\u2019s testimony on the grounds that the witness was an alibi witness rather than a rebuttal witness. The trial court refused to allow Mr. King to testify on the finding that he should have been disclosed to the prosecution.\nWe find the trial court erred in excluding Mr. King\u2019s testimony. The appellant argues and the State concedes that the record does not disclose that the prosecutor requested discovery from the appellant. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.3 provides the applicable discovery rule in criminal cases:\nSubject to constitutional limitations, the prosecuting attorney shall, upon request, be informed as soon as practicable before trial of the nature of any defense which defense counsel intends to use at trial and the names and addresses of persons whom defense counsel intends to call as witnesses in support thereof.\nThus, without a showing that the prosecutor actually requested information regarding the appellant\u2019s defense and potential witnesses pursuant to Rule 18.3, it was error to sanction the appellant for not providing this information to the prosecutor. We therefore reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nRobbins and Mayfield, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "James R. Cooper, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas A. Potter, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 94-209\n902 S.W.2d 253\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered June 28, 1995\nThomas A. Potter, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0098-01",
  "first_page_order": 122,
  "last_page_order": 123
}