{
  "id": 1627466,
  "name": "Clinton FORD v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ford v. State",
  "decision_date": "1972-09-04",
  "docket_number": "5740",
  "first_page": "5",
  "last_page": "6",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 5"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "484 S.W.2d 90"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "246 Ark. 739",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1604170
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/246/0739-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 Ark. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1467117
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/213/0050-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 Ark. 1074",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1633338
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/251/1074-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1398,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6027666326507824e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8196412223260893
    },
    "sha256": "5f07094c54dc8c0883a0ce4dd0d5f6c4b838e07cfd7d53ba865e120156a79087",
    "simhash": "1:99c6c85d081d6f45",
    "word_count": 237
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Clinton FORD v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nIn appealing from convictions for burglary, assault with intent to kill, and assault with intent to rape, the appellant contends only that the trial court\u2019s instruction defining reasonable doubt was erroneous. In an opinion delivered several months after the case at bar was tried we held the particular instruction to be bad. Laird v. State, 251 Ark. 1074, 476 S.W. 2d 811 (1972).\nWe cannot consider the appellant\u2019s argument, for in the court.below there was no objection to the instruction. Price v. City of Trumann, 213 Ark. 50, 209 S.W. 2d 284 (1948). Although Act 333 of 1971 made it unnecessary for a party to save exceptions in criminal cases, it is still required that an objection be made or that the party make known to the trial court the action which he desires the court to take. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2725.1 (Supp. 1971). That statute adopted the rule already prevailing in civil cases. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-1762 (Repl. 1962); Turkey Express v. Skelton Motor Co., 246 Ark. 739, 439 S.W. 2d 923 (1969). Hence the absence of an objection precludes the appellant from raising the point for the first time on appeal.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Burch & Cooper, for appellant.",
      "Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., by: Milton Lueken, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clinton FORD v. STATE of Arkansas\n5740\n484 S.W. 2d 90\nOpinion delivered September 4, 1972\n[Rehearing denied October 9, 1972.]\nBurch & Cooper, for appellant.\nRay Thornton, Atty. Gen., by: Milton Lueken, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0005-01",
  "first_page_order": 29,
  "last_page_order": 30
}