{
  "id": 6138059,
  "name": "O.C. WILLINGHAM v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Willingham v. State",
  "decision_date": "1998-01-21",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 96-1222",
  "first_page": "132",
  "last_page": "135",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ark. App. 132"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "959 S.W.2d 74"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12020362
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 Ark. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        922805
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/327/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 Ark. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        50418
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/328/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ark. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898825
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 Ark. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1878611
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/284/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1456003
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0212-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 325,
    "char_count": 4308,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.739,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1273602934651026e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5749281135695556
    },
    "sha256": "adcfa3766d1b2863eb765a6529cebca3dfcbcf4bf7650270ca0f89ff60a20bf1",
    "simhash": "1:96ad4d36c984ecdc",
    "word_count": 700
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:03:53.777728+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Arey and Roaf, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "O.C. WILLINGHAM v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John Mauzy Pittman, Judge.\nThe appellant in this criminal case was charged with delivery of cocaine. After a jury trial, he was convicted of that offense and sentenced to ten years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. From that conviction, comes this appeal.\nFor reversal, appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for delivery of cocaine. He argues that an audiotape played for the jury and a witness\u2019s testimony based on that audiotape should not have been admitted into evidence, and asks us to disregard those items of evidence and hold that the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.\nAppellant\u2019s argument misconstrues our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. We consider sufficiency questions before we consider any alleged trial errors. In determining whether a finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence, we review the evidence, including any that may have been erroneously admitted, in the fight most favorable to the verdict. Davis v. State, 318 Ark. 212, 885 S.W.2d 292 (1994); Harris v. State, 284 Ark. 247, 681 S.W.2d 334 (1984). Here the evidence, including that alleged to have been erroneously admitted, shows that a confidential informant arrived at appellant\u2019s home on the day in question, told appellant that he wanted a \u201cfive-oh,\u201d gave appellant $50.00, and received two rocks of crack cocaine. This evidence is sufficient to support the jury\u2019s finding of appellant\u2019s guilt.\nNor do we think that the evidence in question was improperly admitted. Appellant contends that the audiotaped conversation of the transaction between himself and the informant should not have been considered by the jury because it was inaudible and, therefore, was untrustworthy. However, such recordings are admissible unless the inaudible portions are so substantial as to render the recording as a whole untrustworthy. Loy v. State, 310 Ark. 33, 832 S.W.2d 499 (1992). This is a matter within the trial court\u2019s discretion, and we will not reverse absent an abuse of that discretion. Id. According to the appellant\u2019s abstract in the case at bar, approximately half of the audiotape that was played for the jury was audible, including the question \u201cwhat do you need now\u201d and the response \u201cI need a five-oh.\u201d The circuit court did not believe that the tape was so deficient as to be of no assistance to the jury, and we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion on this point.\nAppellant also argues that the trial court erred in allowing Agent Richard Wiggins to \u201cinterpret\u201d the audiotape. We do not agree. Although Agent Wiggins testified concerning what was said on the tape, this was in response to a question regarding what he had heard while auditing the conversation as it took place. Furthermore, Agent Wiggins\u2019s testimony was limited to those parts of the conversation that were audible on the audiotape. Finally, while Agent Wiggins was allowed to testify that \u201cfive-oh\u201d was a term meaning fifty dollars worth of illegal drugs, this testimony was based on his specialized training and experience as a police officer engaged in drug task force assignments. Because Agent Wiggins could have qualified as an expert in this area under Ark. R. Evid. 702, his testimony was not improperly admitted. See Martin v. State, 328 Ark. 420, 944 S.W.2d 512 (1997).\nAffirmed.\nArey and Roaf, JJ., agree.\nAppellant asserts on appeal that the audiotape was never formally introduced into evidence, although the tape was played for the jury and the jury was permitted, without objection, to take the tape to the jury room during deliberation. Although appellant, after the close of all the evidence, raised questions concerning the formalities of the audiotape\u2019s introduction, no objection was made, no relief was requested, and no ruling was obtained. Under these circumstances, no issue relating to the formalities of the audiotape\u2019s introduction is before us. See Burton v. State, 327 Ark. 65, 937 S.W.2d 634 (1997); Jones v. State, 326 Ark. 61, 931 S.W.2d 83 (1996).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John Mauzy Pittman, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Honey & Honey, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O.C. WILLINGHAM v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 96-1222\n959 S.W.2d 74\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division IV\nOpinion delivered January 21, 1998\nHoney & Honey, P.A., for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0132-01",
  "first_page_order": 154,
  "last_page_order": 157
}