{
  "id": 1630075,
  "name": "Leslie David HILL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hill v. State",
  "decision_date": "1972-04-17",
  "docket_number": "5696",
  "first_page": "345",
  "last_page": "348",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 Ark. 345"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "479 S.W.2d 234"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "130 S.W. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1910,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Ark. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1546866
      ],
      "year": 1910,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/93/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 S.W. 961",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 Ark. 411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1379877
      ],
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/165/0411-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 Ark. 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1606763
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/245/0808-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 Ark. 746",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1470319
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/212/0746-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 Ark. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717619
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/249/0042-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 S.W. 2d 772",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Ark. 862",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1397086
      ],
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/178/0862-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 Ark. 746",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1470319
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/212/0746-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 351,
    "char_count": 6032,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.835,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.034489097263532e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37383704609805435
    },
    "sha256": "8d4a09855bdba899a179d4de7036de304f748c7c30652c826993f97b52bbd2b6",
    "simhash": "1:57f4a2a4432afad7",
    "word_count": 1026
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:02.058798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Fogleman, J., not participating.",
      "Byrd, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Leslie David HILL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nUpon a retrial, following our reversal in Hill v. State, 249 Ark. 42, 458 S.W. 2d 45 (1970), the appellant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and the penalty assessed at life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. For reversal of that judgment the sole issue on this appeal is appellant\u2019s contention that the court erred in giving the following instruction to the jury over his specific objections and exceptions.\n\u201cCertain probate court records, orders and other documents have been introduced into evidence in this case. When insanity is relied on as a defense, an adjudication declaring the defendant to be an incompetent or insane person may go to the jury as evidence on that issue. Such adjudication is not conclusive of the insanity of the defendant, but may be considered by you along with all the other evidence bearing on the question of the defendant\u2019s sanity or insanity.\u201d\nApellant asserts that in this instruction the court erroneously commented upon the conclusive effect or weight to be attached to appellant\u2019s previous adjudication as an incompetent (this adjudication has existed since a 1947 probate court proceeding). Appellant cites to us Article 7, \u00a7 25 of the Constitution of Arkansas of 1874 which provides: \u201cJudges shall not charge juries with regard to matters of fact, but shall declare the law,\nThe appellee-state, however, contends that it is a proper instruction, citing Poole v. State, 212 Ark. 746, 207 S.W. 2d 725 (1948) upon which the instruction was based. There we held that a previous adjudication of insanity was admissible in evidence, although not conclusive on that disputed issue. Obviously, in the case at bar, the trial court was giving the jury a guideline as to the law as enunciated in Poole v. State, supra. In doing so, the trial court did not take from the jury its right to consider the previous adjudication in determining the disputed factual issue of insanity; in fact, the trial court told the jury that the previous adjudication could be considered \u201calong with all the other evidence bearing on the question of the appellant\u2019s sanity or insanity.\u201d As we construe this instruction, the court merely told the jury that, as a matter of law, the existing adjudication of insanity was not conclusive or binding upon the jury on that issue. Cf. Petty v. State, 245 Ark. 808, 434 S.W. 2d 602 (1968); McDonald v. State, 165 Ark. 411, 264 S.W. 961 (1924); Hogue v. State, 93 Ark. 316, 130 S.W. 167 (1910).\nIn the case at bar the jury was not told that it could not give conclusive effect to the prior adjudication of appellant\u2019s incompetency when considered with other evidence bearing on the issue of sanity. In fact, the negative wording of this instruction as to the conclusive effect of the sanity adjudication comports substantially with our Arkansas Model Jury Instructions (Civil) 601 and 903. Those instructions, in part, are negatively worded; each provides that a violation of a statute or ordinance, \u201calthough not necessarily negligence, is evidence of negligence to be considered by you along with all of the other facts and circumstances in the case.\u201d (emphasis added)\nFurthermore, by Instruction 18, the court told the jury that: \u201cIn the course of this trial the Court has made rulings in the conduct of the trial and on the admission of evidence. In so doing the Court has not expressed or intim\u00e1ted in any way the weight or credit to be given to evidence or testimony admitted during the trial, nor has the Court indicated in any way the conclusions to be returned by you in this case.\u201d Also, the court told the jury, in the next instruction, that it should consider \u201cthese instructions as a whole and not any part to the exclusion of the others.\u201d\nAlthough, in the case at bar, the obvious guideline intended by the instruction in its negative terms, as to the conclusive effect of a previous adjudication of incompetency, could be achieved by less objectionable language, we cannot say that the instruction constituted prejudicial or reversible error.\nAffirmed.\nFogleman, J., not participating.\nByrd, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice,\ndissenting. Article 7 \u00a7 23 of our Constitution provides:\n\u201cJudges shall not charge juries with regard to matters of fact, but shall declare the law, and in jury trials shall reduce their charge or instructions to writing on the request of either party.\u201d\nIn the case before us the trial court instructed the jury:\n.. When insanity is relied on as a defense, an adjudication declaring the defendant to be incompetent or insane person may go to the jury as evidence on that issue. Such adjudication is not conclusive of the insanity of the defendant, but may be considered by you along with all the other evidence... .\u201d\nIn Field v. Koonce, 178 Ark. 862, 12 S.W. 2d 772 (1929), and Poole v. State, 212 Ark. 746, 207 S.W. 2d 725 (1948), it was pointed out that when one is adjudged incompetent there is a rebuttable presumption of the continuance of that condition. In Poole v. State, we said:\n\u201cIn criminal cases the record of inquisitions of lunacy or insanity is competent to go to the jury as evidence on that issue, but the weight of such evidence is for the jury.\u201d (Emphasis mine).\nHere the trial court did not leave to the jury the weight to be applied to Hill\u2019s adjudications of incompetency but instead told them that such adjudication was not conclusive. Under decisions such as Field, v. Koonce, supra, and Poole v. State, supra, the jury could have found that the adjudication was conclusive of the issue. The trial court\u2019s charge that such an adjudication was not conclusive was nothing more nor less than a comment on an issue of fact contrary to Art. 7 \u00a7 23 of the Constitution of Arkansas.\nFor the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. B. Howard and Jack Segars, for appellant.",
      "Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., by John D. Bridgeforth, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Leslie David HILL v. STATE of Arkansas\n5696\n479 S.W. 2d 234\nOpinion delivered April 17, 1972\n[Rehearing Denied May 22, 1972]\nW. B. Howard and Jack Segars, for appellant.\nRay Thornton, Atty. Gen., by John D. Bridgeforth, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0345-01",
  "first_page_order": 369,
  "last_page_order": 372
}