{
  "id": 8724918,
  "name": "Obrie Eugene WHITE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. State",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-17",
  "docket_number": "CR 74-20",
  "first_page": "775",
  "last_page": "777",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "256 Ark. 775"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "510 S.W.2d 285"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "121 S.W. 927",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1909,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ark. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511779
      ],
      "year": 1909,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/91/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 Ark. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1650249
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/223/0330-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 3230,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2085806933145523
    },
    "sha256": "931e4accb4ebca37f85226852d7302cdbac4f9b526902ac529b29ec5ef42766f",
    "simhash": "1:03cb50ce872fa0d8",
    "word_count": 525
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:14.527021+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Obrie Eugene WHITE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant was convicted of robbery, as a multiple offender, by a jury and his punishment assessed at 21 years in the Department of Correction. For reversal appellant first contends through present court appointed counsel that the court erred in permitting the state to adduce testimony which tended to indicate that the appellant had committed other crimes or showed criminal misbehavior independent of the alleged offense for which he was being tried. We cannot agree;\nAppellant correctly contends that evidence of other crimes by the accused cannot be used to prove the alleged offense at issue if not relevant to show intent. Alford v. State, 223 Ark. 330, 266 S.W. 2d 804 (1954). Neither is evidence admissible to show the accused\u2019s bad character unless the defendant has put his character in issue. Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, 121 S.W. 927 (1909). We do not find these cases applicable in the case at bar. Here the appellant\u2019s confederate, who was serving a nine-year sentence on a plea of guilty to the same robbery charge, was called by the state as a witness. However, he testified that he actually committed the armed robbery and that appellant, his friend of several years, was an unwitting accomplice. It clearly appears, on cross-examination, that this witness was trying to take the blame and shield the appellant. He also denied that appellant was to share in the proceeds of the robbery. On re-direct the state pursued the inquiry by asking the witness if he had not on previous occasions shared funds with the appellant whenever he, the witness, \u201cmade a score of any kind.\u201d The witness replied that he had never done anything before with the appellant. He was also permitted to be questioned as to whether he had previously taken \u201ca fall\u201d thereby exonerating appellant of possessing a stolen shotgun. The witness answered that he had exonerated appellant by \u201ctelling the truth.\u201d\nWe perceive no prejudice to appellant. Also, in view of the witness\u2019s evasive and inconsistent statements which obviously were designed to cast blame upon himself for the armed robbery and exonerate appellant, we think the state properly was permitted to make these inquiries as bearing on the witness\u2019s credibility.\nAppellant also contends that there was no substantial evidence to support the verdict and, therefore, the trial court erred in not granting his motion for a directed verdict. The trial court properly overruled appellant\u2019s motion. The victim of the armed robbery identified the appellant as being present with the other participant during the robbery. Appellant attracted the victim\u2019s attention by making \u00bf^purchase of some wine and cigarettes. When the store employee opened the cash register, appellant\u2019s companion, the state\u2019s witness, robbed him of $100 at gunpoint. The state\u2019s witness finally admitted that he had furnished the appellant with sufficient money for the purpose of making the purchase and that appellant had knowingly aided and abetted in the robbery.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Parkerson, for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Alston Jennings Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Obrie Eugene WHITE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 74-20\n510 S.W. 2d 285\nOpinion delivered June 17, 1974\nJohn W. Parkerson, for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Alston Jennings Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0775-01",
  "first_page_order": 811,
  "last_page_order": 813
}