{
  "id": 1653062,
  "name": "Ragsdale v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ragsdale v. State",
  "decision_date": "1953-10-19",
  "docket_number": "4753",
  "first_page": "499",
  "last_page": "501",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 Ark. 499"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "262 S.W.2d 91"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "217 Ark. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723214
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/217/0646-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 Ark. 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1478725
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/208/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S. W. 2d 527",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 Ark. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718360
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/195/0067-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 2993,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.255650085973526e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6112323537009301
    },
    "sha256": "969cf5af0ca6a8fc3a72294c04b2c03bd4845ee9c632240d8921b211eeb6f646",
    "simhash": "1:bea384459713f397",
    "word_count": 500
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:42.003901+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ragsdale v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robinson, J.\nAppellant Robert Ragsdale was convicted on the charge of involuntary manslaughter. The information charges that Ragsdale \u2018 \u2018 did wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously drive and operate a motor vehicle without due caution and circumspection and in the wanton disregard of the safety of others and then and there did drive the said automobile or vehicle upon and against the person of Pearl Teem Thompson and her, the said Pearl Teem Thompson, did injure and kill.\u201d\nOn appeal there are two issues \u2014 the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and the trial court\u2019s action in overruling a motion that the prosecuting attorney be required to file a bill of particulars.\nThe trial court did not error in overruling\u2019 the motion for a bill of particulars; the information plainly charges that the defendant in wanton disregard of the safety of others drove the automobile upon and against the person of Pearl Teem Thompson thereby killing her. The information fully informed the defendant of just what he was charged with doing; he had every chance to prepare his defense. The evidence produced no element of surprise. It is true the state\u2019s evidence tended to prove the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the commission of the offense; but this evidence did not go to prove what the defendant did, although it had a tendency to prove the cause of his actions.\nArk. Stat., \u00a7 43-1012, provides: \u201cNo indictment is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon, be affected by any defect which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits. \u2019 \u2019 \u00a7 43-804 provides: \u2018 \u2018 The Bill of Particulars now required by law in criminal cases shall state the act relied upon by the State in sufficient details as formerly required by an indictment; that is, with sufficient certainty to apprise the defendant of the specific crime with which charged, in order to enable him to prepare his defense. ...\u201d\nThe information contains all the requirements of the statutes. Brockelhurst v. State, 195 Ark. 67, 111 S. W. 2d 527; Bryant v. State, 208 Ark. 192, 185 S. W. 2d 280; Haller v. State, 217 Ark. 646, 232 S. W. 2d 829.\nAs to the sufficiency of the evidence, there is substantial testimony to the effect that Mrs. Thompson, the deceased, and her husband had driven out in the country to pick muscadines, parked their car on the shoulder of the road, and were engaged in picking the berries when the defendant while nnder the influence of alcohol approached at a reckless rate of speed, drove his automobile completely off the road and onto Mrs. Thompson thereby killing- her and seriously injuring Mr. Thompson. The evidence fully sustains a verdict of guilty.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robinson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Reece Caudle, for appellant.",
      "Tom Gentry, Attorney General, and Thorp Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ragsdale v. State.\n4753\n262 S. W. 2d 91\nOpinion delivered October 19, 1953.\nRehearing denied December 7, 1953.\nReece Caudle, for appellant.\nTom Gentry, Attorney General, and Thorp Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0499-01",
  "first_page_order": 523,
  "last_page_order": 525
}