{
  "id": 1616775,
  "name": "John Henry KAY v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kay v. State",
  "decision_date": "1976-11-22",
  "docket_number": "CR 76-131",
  "first_page": "681",
  "last_page": "683",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 Ark. 681"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "543 S.W.2d 479"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "393 U.S. 374",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11316280
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/393/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 Ark. 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1604174
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/246/0494-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 248,
    "char_count": 2817,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.427467238806989e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34190545471956085
    },
    "sha256": "715ab49efee5060c9f622689c03cea0576d4edfc0ae87525d79cfb7389b3f01e",
    "simhash": "1:4ecdf149ace6485e",
    "word_count": 483
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:47:10.616532+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Jones, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "John Henry KAY v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nJohn Henry Kay appeals from a verdict and judgment sentencing him to five years\u2019 imprisonment for robbery and to two additional years for committing the offense with a firearm. We find no merit in the two points for reversal that are presented.\nThe victim of the robbery, Khachia Muradain, who was employed in his son\u2019s liquor store, speaks Armenian but not English. The son, who was not present when the robbery occurred and who did not testify, acted as the interpreter when his father testified for the State. Defense counsel objected to that procedure, on the ground that the son was biased, and also asked for a mistrial.\nNo prejudicial error is shown. The son had had some earlier experience as an interpreter, but he was evidently not skilled in that role. Occasionally he interposed remarks of his own instead of confining himself to the attorneys\u2019 questions and to the witness\u2019s answers. His remarks, however, had no direct bearing on the merits of the case. Any impropriety in the procedure could readily have been corrected by an admonition to the jury, but the court was not asked to take that action. In the circumstances the request for a mistrial was properly denied. Back v. Duncan, 246 Ark. 494, 438 S.W. 2d 690 (1969). Moreover the questions and answers were recorded on tape so that the son\u2019s accuracy as an interpreter could have been checked later on, but that step does not appear to have been thought necessary.\nIt is also argued that the accused was denied his right to a speedy trial. Kay was in prison in Louisiana when the information was filed, but eventually he waived extradition and consented to being brought to Arkansas for trial. Having waived extradition he is not in a position to, and does not, question the extradition procedure. He does assert, however, that the State was required to exercise good faith in seeking his return to Arkansas. Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969). From that premise he argues that the State\u2019s good faith is rebutted by its use of certain \u201cpre-notarized\u201d documents in the extradition proceedings and that therefore he was denied a speedy trial. This argument is not sound. We cannot approve the use of such documents, but we fail to see how their use implies a lack of good faith as far as a speedy trial is concerned. To the contrary, presumably the documents were used to hasten Kay\u2019s return to Arkansas rather than to retard it. Consequently no prejudice from their use appears.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Jones, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harold L. Hall, Public Defender, by: William R. Simpson, Dep. Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Terry R. Kirkpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Henry KAY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 76-131\n543 S.W. 2d 479\nOpinion delivered November 22, 1976\nHarold L. Hall, Public Defender, by: William R. Simpson, Dep. Public Defender, for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Terry R. Kirkpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0681-01",
  "first_page_order": 711,
  "last_page_order": 713
}