{
  "id": 1621234,
  "name": "Daniel Leslie HARTMAN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hartman v. State",
  "decision_date": "1975-12-15",
  "docket_number": "CR 75-133",
  "first_page": "1018",
  "last_page": "1019",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "258 Ark. 1018"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "530 S.W.2d 366"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "253 Ark. 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1627379
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/253/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 Ark. 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721526
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/257/0542-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 2585,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2680903889145658e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6140259528644334
    },
    "sha256": "6ff61f01e72b14fcda1cc39cec405baa65722598b25f433ed22055f947d559b2",
    "simhash": "1:16c7d045da8cd61e",
    "word_count": 432
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:57.275817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Daniel Leslie HARTMAN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant Hartman and three others, Emerson, Roberts, and Whitehead, were convicted by the court, sitting as a jury, of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 82-2617 (Supp. 1973). They were sentenced to five years imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant\u2019s sole point for reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict as to Hartman\u2019s participation. We cannot agree when we consider the evidence, which is substantial, in the light most favorable to the appellee as we must do on appeal. Haynie v. State, 257 Ark. 542, 518 S.W. 2d 492 (1975).\nUndercover agents testified they made a deal with Roberts to purchase twenty pounds of marijuana. Roberts advised them that he could make delivery at a certain time and at a designated location. The two agents picked Roberts up at his home and proceeded to this site where Emerson and Hartman arrived in a car driven by Emerson. The officers refused Emerson\u2019s request to go somewhere else to get the marijuana. Thereupon, Emerson and Hartman left with Emerson driving and advising \u201cthey\u201d would be back. They returned a short time later in another car, driven by Emerson, with Hartman in the front seat and Whitehead sitting in the back seat. The occupants then got out of the car. Emerson and Hartman went to the trunk of the car where they \u201clooked into\u201d and \u201cfooled around with the trunk.\u201d Emerson removed a box from his car trunk and put it onto his car seat where it was examined by the officer and then transferred by Emerson to the undercover agent\u2019s car. Thereupon, the officers arrested the appellant and his codefendants. There was no money exchanged during the transaction. There was no testimony that the defendant Hartman talked to the officers, drove either of the cars involved, or transferred the marijuana from one car to the other.\nThe distinction between accessories and principals has been abolished in all criminal cases and accessories are punished as principals. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-118 (Repl. 1964). Murrah v. State, 253 Ark. 432, 486 S.W. 2d 897 (1972). In the case at bar, the evidence is amply sufficient from which the trial court, the trier of the facts, could reasonably infer that the appellant, being present on two occasions, was an active participant in the alleged offense.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harold Hall, Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Jackson Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Daniel Leslie HARTMAN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 75-133\n530 S.W. 2d 366\nOpinion delivered December 15, 1975\nHarold Hall, Public Defender, for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Jackson Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1018-01",
  "first_page_order": 1066,
  "last_page_order": 1067
}