{
  "id": 6139660,
  "name": "Willie LINCOLN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lincoln v. State",
  "decision_date": "1983-02-16",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 82-155",
  "first_page": "179",
  "last_page": "180",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 Ark. App. 179"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "646 S.W.2d 30"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 Ark. App. 351",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6142309
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/4/0351-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 Ark. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717361
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/273/0050-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 2756,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.82,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17490652929958464
    },
    "sha256": "fdc21d92b1fc778a21d05ca5a87d4ec5b8d46a5b3d4e2e2b9798f0e71554a09f",
    "simhash": "1:976a0c267e845d43",
    "word_count": 482
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:05.910708+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glaze, J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Willie LINCOLN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge.\nThe appellant was convicted of burglary and attempted rape and sentenced to serve consecutive terms of 10 years imprisonment on each charge.\nHis only point on appeal is that the trial court erred in allowing a red bandana \u2014 or handkerchief \u2014 to be introduced into evidence. It is appellant\u2019s contention that there was no foundation for the introduction of the exhibit but that, even though there was no evidence to show it belonged to appellant or was ever in his possession, the jury was left with a strong impression that he was in some way connected with it.\nThere was evidence that a man attacked a 17-year-old girl who was baby-sitting a 9-year-old boy. After the man left the room where they were, they attempted to leave the house and were again confronted by the man who was then wearing a red bandana over the lower portion of his face. During the boy\u2019s testimony he was shown a red bandana and asked if it \u201clooks like the one the man had,\u201d and the boy said it did. Essentially the same evidence was given by the girl.\nWe think it proper for these witnesses to describe the attacker\u2019s appearance and how he was dressed. Even evidence of crimes other than the one charged have been allowed in order that the jury might know all the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime charged. Thomas v. State, 273 Ark. 50, 615 S.W.2d 361 (1981). If the bandana shown the witnesses helped them to explain and the jury to understand what the attacker had over his face, then it would be proper to use the bandana for that purpose. Morrison v. Firemen\u2019s Ins. Co., 4 Ark. App. 351, 631 S.W.2d 310 (1982). McCormick on Evidence, \u00a7 212 (2nd ed. 1972), states it this way:\nIt is today increasingly common to encounter the offer of tangible items which are not contended themselves to have played any part in the history of the case, but which are instead tendered for the purpose of rendering other evidence more comprehensible to the trier of fact.\nUpon request, the trial court would have been required to instruct the jury that the bandana was admitted for that limited purpose. Uniform Evidence Rule 105. However, no such request was made and \u201cwhether the admission of a particular exhibit will in fact be helpful, or will instead tend to confuse or mislead the trier, is a matter commonly viewed to be within the sound discretion of the trial court.\u201d McCormick, supra. We find no abuse of the trial court\u2019s discretion in this case.\nWe affirm.\nGlaze, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ken Cook, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Willie LINCOLN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 82-155\n646 S.W.2d 30\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 16, 1983\nKen Cook, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0179-01",
  "first_page_order": 205,
  "last_page_order": 206
}