{
  "id": 1621221,
  "name": "Roger HILL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hill v. State",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-19",
  "docket_number": "CR 75-28",
  "first_page": "164",
  "last_page": "165",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "258 Ark. 164"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "522 S.W.2d 660"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "99 L. Ed. 997",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed.",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 U.S. 190",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11334267
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/349/0190-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 2763,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.88,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.490011498157265e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4860042033338623
    },
    "sha256": "0bc2656c22e102841e9b001f7418db04c93c70562f148e01d542f5c30deecc71",
    "simhash": "1:ac1ab54fcaf157c8",
    "word_count": 460
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:57.275817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Roger HILL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nAppellant Roger Hill was convicted of selling a controlled substance (marijuana) and given a ten year sentence. For reversal he makes the following contentions:\n\u201cI. The trial judge improperly permitted a witness subpoenaed by the defense to assert the privilege against self-incrimination.\nII. It was prejudicial error to allow the prosecuting attorney to repeatedly describe the appellant as a drug pusher in his closing argument when there was no reference to such term in the evidence and no reason for it to be inferred therefrom.\u201d\nThe record shows that Larry Jackson, an undercover agent, went by appellant\u2019s house to see his roommate. While talking to appellant in front of his apartment some young boys came by and asked appellant if he had a \u201clid\u201d. Appellant told them \u201cyes\u201d and went into his apartment with the boys. When the boys left, appellant made inquiry as to why Jackson wished to see the roommate. When Jackson explained that he desired to purchase some marijuana, appellant invited him into the apartment. Inside the apartment appellant got an athletic traveling bag containing 25 to 30 lids of marijuana. Jackson purchased two lids for $30.00. Inside the apartment was a Negro male that introduced himself as Dewight. Dewight told Jackson that he had bought a \u201clid\u201d from appellant.\nAt the trial appellant called as a witness Lisa Roddy. After ascertaining that Lisa Roddy knew Larry Jackson, appellant asked her, \u201cHas Mr. Jackson, in your presence, in your view, ever attempted to smoke a marijuana cigarette or anything you think or know contain marijuana?\u201d To this and other questions of like nature, the witness pleaded the Fifth Amendment. The record shows that Lisa Roddy was under indictment at the time on drug charges.\nPOINT I. We find no merit in appellant\u2019s contention that the witness was improperly permitted to plead the Fifth Amendment. It was pointed out in Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190, 75 S. Ct. 687, 99 L. Ed. 997 (1955), that to \u201csustain the privilege ... it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question, or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.\u201d\nPOINT II. Under the record presented it appears that appellant was fairly active in the sale of marijuana and consequently we cannot say the State\u2019s characterization of appellant as a \u201cdrug pusher\u201d was not fair comment on the evidence.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, by: Tom D. Womack, for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Robert A. Newcomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Roger HILL v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 75-28\n522 S.W. 2d 660\nOpinion delivered May 19, 1975\nBarrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, by: Tom D. Womack, for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Robert A. Newcomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0164-01",
  "first_page_order": 202,
  "last_page_order": 203
}