{
  "id": 8723107,
  "name": "Phillip H. HENSON, a/k/a Robert V. SCHEICK v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Henson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1973-11-26",
  "docket_number": "CR 73-114",
  "first_page": "600",
  "last_page": "603",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 Ark. 600"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "501 S.W.2d 619"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "242 Ark. 587",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721861
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/242/0587-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 Ark. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1597821
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/248/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 Ark. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1730977
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/239/0727-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 393,
    "char_count": 6151,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.85,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2085538577731752
    },
    "sha256": "70f5bcfb2c7a0147bf148d4a1edd3d79a2e765b42dab608cbb192030bcf89666",
    "simhash": "1:36f82ece33e64b89",
    "word_count": 996
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:11.540726+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Phillip H. HENSON, a/k/a Robert V. SCHEICK v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant was convicted of the crime of rape in 1964 and his punishment was fixed at life imprisonment. We reversed in Henson v. State, 239 Ark. 727, 393 S.W.2d 856 (1965). Upon a change of venue and a retrial in 1966, a jury again found appellant guilty of rape and assessed his punishment at life imprisonment. From a judgment on that verdict comes this belated appeal permitted by our per curiam order dated January 29, 1973. Present counsel was appointed for appeal purposes.\nAppellant first contends for reversal \u201cthe court erred in allowing the testimony of Dr. Walter P. Harris to be admitted because his opinion was formed by using information obtained through a doctor-patient relationship which is privileged.\u201d Dr. Harris examined appellant on two occasions during the time he was awaiting trial and incarcerated. The first examination was at the behest of appellant\u2019s wife that he be examined by the state hospital authorities as to his mental condition. The court ordered two local doctors, including Dr. Harris, to conduct the requested mental examination. Before the petition was withdrawn, Dr. Harris examined the appellant and diagnosed him as a sexual psychopath and not insane. In the former appeal, Henson v. State, supra, we held that Dr. Harris\u2019 examination as to appellant\u2019s mental condition was not violative of the doctor-patient relationship. In the case at bar it clearly appears that Dr. Harris did not rely in any manner whatsoever upon the second examination, based upon a physical complaint by appellant, in forming his opinion concerning appellant\u2019s mental state. We perceive no violation of the doctor-patient relationship.\nAppellant next contends \u201cthe court further erred in allowing Dr. Harris to testify as to the defendant\u2019s sanity as he was not qualified to render such opinion and because such testimony, since there was no plea of insanity, served only to prejudice and inflame the senses of the jury.\u201d We first observe that it appears the doctor\u2019s qualifications as a physician were admitted by the appellant\u2019s trial counsel on two occasions. Further, there was no objection as to his qualifications raised at the trial. We cannot consider an issue raised the first time on appeal. Nash v. State, 248 Ark. 323, 451 S.W.2d 869 (1970). When the doctor testified as to appellant\u2019s psychopathic mental condition, an objection was made stating \u201c***if we are talking about generally. This defendant is who we are trying. We are here on a specific case for a specific defendant.\u201d The court answered \u201c[W]ith reference to the specific offense it will be sustained. Lay the proper foundation.\u201d The doctor then proceeded to give his opinion as to appellant\u2019s mental condition and no objection was renewed. Thereafter, appellant\u2019s counsel proceeded to cross-examine the doctor with reference to the mental examination. We cannot say in the absence of proper objections that reversible error occurred.\nAppellant next contends for reversal that the \u201ccourt erred in failing to grant a mistrial of the case after each of several highly prejudicial remarks were made by witnesses for the prosecution.\u201d The prosecuting witness testified that after raping her appellant assaulted her again a short time thereafter. The court sustained appellant\u2019s objection and admonished the jury to disregard the prosecutrix\u2019s statement that \u201c[H]e attacked me again.\u201d The sheriff testified that upon arresting the appellant he told him \u201che was under arrest for the rape of this girl, and there was two girls \u2014 one living over here and one \u2014 .\u201d He was interrupted by an objection from appellant\u2019s counsel. The trial court sustained the objection and, as requested, admonished the jury to disregard this testimony. Appellant also complains that the testimony of an aunt of the prosecutrix was prejudicial when she testified that her niece (prosecutrix) was \u201c[Cjrying, screaming she was scared to death. *** I went to the phone and called the sheriff\u2019s office. And she said, \u2018If you do that, he will come and kill us every one.\u2019 \u201d The court again sustained the objection of appellant\u2019s counsel and, as requested, admonished the jury to disregard the prosecution\u2019s statement that \u201che will come out here and kill us every one.\u201d In each of these enumerated three instances, the asserted error was corrected by the cautionary instructions given by the court. Stepps v. State, 242 Ark. 587, 414 S.W.2d 620 (1967).\nNor do we find any prejudicial error in the state trooper\u2019s testimony that the defendant, when arrested, stated that \u201cI won\u2019t go with the son of a bitch [another officer], but I will go with you.\u201d We cannot perceive how this remark by the witness was prejudicial as to appellant\u2019s guilt or innocence of the alleged offense.\nAppellant further contends that the \"court erred in failing to strike and strongly admonish the jury not to consider testimony of Cora Williams when she related the statement of her niece as told to her by her daughter.\u201d The prosecutrix went to Mrs. Williams\u2019 house immediately following her ordeal with appellant. The prose-cutrix went in the bathroom with her sister and Mrs. Williams\u2019 daughter. It appears that the aunt overheard their conversation. Mrs. Williams testified \u201c[S]he told my daughter, that she had been attacked and when I told them to come out, if they didn\u2019t I would tear the door off the hinges, and when they come out, Wanda was crying.\u201d Appellant\u2019s attorney objected saying \"[T]hat is not a spontaneous statement \u2014 that is too remote.\u201d Thereupon, the trial court sustained the objection. It does not appear that appellant requested a cautionary instruction or that the prosecutor continued interrogating the witness further as to the asserted hearsay testimony. Also, let it be remembered the prosecutrix had previously testified that she had been attacked by appellant. We perceive no prejudicial or reversible error.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams & Gardner, for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Philip M. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Phillip H. HENSON, a/k/a Robert V. SCHEICK v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 73-114\n501 S.W. 2d 619\nOpinion delivered November 26, 1973\nWilliams & Gardner, for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Philip M. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0600-01",
  "first_page_order": 622,
  "last_page_order": 625
}