{ "id": 6140681, "name": "Shanquita TAYLOR, a Juvenile, and Cloria Taylor, Guardian v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. State", "decision_date": "2004-11-03", "docket_number": "CA 04-369", "first_page": "269", "last_page": "272-274", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "88 Ark. App. 269" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "197 S.W.3d 31" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "70 Ark. App. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138209 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/70/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "315 Ark. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1910525 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/315/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 Ark. 774", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1664795 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/265/0774-01" ] }, { "cite": "715 S.W.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 Ark. 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875386 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/289/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 Ark. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1111294 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/346/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-37-201", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 327, "char_count": 4838, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.095130193347235e-08, "percentile": 0.3805287489733957 }, "sha256": "0cd04f875e8245fcb3b316d4309b91bf6d5aa8171e4072a3b4470297ba82551c", "simhash": "1:8469b2ae44ce2010", "word_count": 793 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:43.833679+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Griffen and Neal, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Shanquita TAYLOR, a Juvenile, and Cloria Taylor, Guardian v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Andree Layton Roaf, Judge.\nShanquita Taylor was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for check forgery in violation of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-37-201 (Repl. 1997). She was ordered to serve a one-year probation, complete forty hours of community service or pay a fine of $500, and pay restitution in the amount of$245.61 and court costs. On appeal, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay evidence that was used to identify her as the perpetrator of the crime. We affirm.\nShanquita and Trinett Miles are classmates. One day at school, Trinett asked Shanquita to hold her purse. Trinett had a checkbook in her purse. One week later, Trinett received a notice from her bank regarding insufficient funds in her bank account. She later discovered that some checks had been torn from her checkbook and that two checks had been forged on her account at a Wal-Mart store.\nMatthew Hawkins testified that he was employed at the Wal-Mart store and accepted one of the forged checks from Shanquita. He testified that he recalled taking the check from Shanquita and identified her in the courtroom. When asked how he remembered accepting the check from Shanquita, Hawkins testified that he had been written up for failing to follow company policy regarding accepting checks; that he learned that the person who wrote the check was not the owner of the account; that he recognized Shanquita as someone who went to school with his wife; and that in order to identify the person who wrote the check, he looked for Shanquita\u2019s picture in his wife\u2019s yearbook. Counsel for Shanquita objected to Hawkins\u2019s testimony about the yearbook, arguing that it was inadmissible hearsay. The objection was overruled. Hawkins said that, after looking through his wife\u2019s yearbook, he was able to place Shanquita\u2019s name with her face.\nShanquita testified on her own behalf. She denied taking or forging Trinett\u2019s checks. Following the presentation of all of the evidence, the juvenile court found Shanquita guilty, and this appeal followed.\nShanquita argues that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting Hawkins\u2019s testimony about his identification of her because his reference to her picture in the yearbook is hearsay. Shanquita also challenges the credibility of Hawkins\u2019s testimony because the State failed to introduce the yearbook into evidence. As a result, she argues, the trial court was forced to accept as true Hawkins\u2019s testimony that Shanquita and the person in the yearbook were the same.\nAdmissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Martin v. State, 346 Ark. 198, 57 S.W.3d 136 (2001). Our appellate courts will not reverse a trial court\u2019s ruling on a hearsay question unless the appellant can demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Id. \u201c\u2019Hearsay\u2019 is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\u201d Ark. R. Evid. 801(c) (2004). Hearsay testimony is generally inadmissible. Ark. R. Evid. 802 (2004). The hearsay rule is not violated when a witness testifies about a physical object, which was not presented in court. Johnson v. State, 289 Ark. 589, 715 S.W.2d 411 (1986); Redman v. State, 265 Ark. 774, 580 S.W.2d 945 (1979). Also, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting out-of-court statements that are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Buchanan v. State, 315 Ark. 227, 866 S.W.2d 395 (1993). Moreover, statements that are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but are merely offered to explain the witness\u2019s conduct, are not hearsay. Brock v. State, 70 Ark. App. 107, 14 S.W.3d 908 (2000).\nIn this case, Hawkins\u2019s testimony did not meet the definition of hearsay. First, Hawkins\u2019s reliance on the picture in the yearbook is not hearsay. Notwithstanding the State\u2019s failure to introduce the yearbook into evidence, Hawkins was free to testify about what he learned after viewing Shanquita\u2019s picture in the yearbook. Because the yearbook is a physical object and not a statement, it is not subject to the hearsay rule. More importantly, Hawkins\u2019s testimony was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted; rather, his testimony explained why he consulted the yearbook in the first place.\nAccordingly, because Hawkins\u2019s testimony did not meet the definition of hearsay, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Shanquita\u2019s hearsay objection.\nAffirmed.\nGriffen and Neal, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Andree Layton Roaf, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Gary W. Potts, for appellant.", "Mike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Shanquita TAYLOR, a Juvenile, and Cloria Taylor, Guardian v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA 04-369\n197 S.W.3d 31\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 3, 2004\nGary W. Potts, for appellant.\nMike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0269-01", "first_page_order": 295, "last_page_order": 298 }