{
  "id": 8717330,
  "name": "James P. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. State",
  "decision_date": "1973-09-04",
  "docket_number": "CR 73-76",
  "first_page": "9",
  "last_page": "10",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 Ark. 9"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "498 S.W.2d 335"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 1660,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.835,
    "sha256": "f469eb6546307a4597e1afe4d5addb7b3eea3fd3e54765d955534b1cc1012286",
    "simhash": "1:176c095769de4e71",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:11.540726+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James P. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nIn the Little Rock Municipal Court the appellant was found guilty of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-1026.1 (Supp. 1971). This appeal is from the circuit court\u2019s affirmance of the municipal court judgment.\nThe appellant is correct in his contention that there is no proof that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest. He was suffering from hypoglycemia, an affliction that may cause dizziness or unconsciousness. A state policeman arrested Williams upon finding him unconscious in a sitting position at the wheel of a car which was standing on a public highway with its motor running. According to the officer, there was a strong odor of alcohol upon Williams\u2019 breath. Williams\u2019 intractable conduct upon his return to consciousness, together with the presence of certain pills upon the dashboard of the car, led the officer to charge Williams with driving under the influence of drugs. However, the undisputed testimony, including that of Williams\u2019 doctor, shows that the pills were prescribed tranquilizers which could not have caused the condition in which Williams was found. Williams himself admitted that he had drunk beer before his arrest, but his testimony that he had not taken either the tranquilizers or any other drug is uncontradicted. Thus there is no proof to sustain an essential element of the charge.\nReversed and dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cearley and Gitchel, for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Charles A. Banks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James P. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 73-76\n498 S.W. 2d 335\nOpinion delivered September 4, 1973\nCearley and Gitchel, for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Charles A. Banks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0009-01",
  "first_page_order": 31,
  "last_page_order": 32
}