{
  "id": 1678852,
  "name": "Jerry HILL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hill v. State",
  "decision_date": "1977-05-31",
  "docket_number": "CR 77-42",
  "first_page": "711",
  "last_page": "713",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 Ark. 711"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "551 S.W.2d 200"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "220 Ark. 834",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1660074
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/220/0834-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 284,
    "char_count": 3997,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.878,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3270312284615821
    },
    "sha256": "13880c46812f113e342a68e125908e8d624dd0f94bfaa21421ecdb09b6cb16ef",
    "simhash": "1:033e1f1771e6e075",
    "word_count": 666
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:25.982646+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hickman, JJ\u25a0"
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Jerry HILL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nThe trial court sitting as a jury found the appellant Jerry Hill guilty of burglary and theft. For reversal appellant raises the issues hereinafter discussed.\nPOINT I. Appellant contends that the evidence does not support either burglary or theft in that he did not enter the premises which were \u201clikely to contain persons\u201d for the purpose of committing therein an offense punishable by imprisonment.\nBurglary is defined, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2002 (Ark.\nCrim. Code 1976), as follows:\n\u201cA person commits burglary if he enters or remains unlawfully in an occupiable structure of another person with the purpose of committing therein an offense punishable by imprisonment.\u201d\nThe crime of theft which is punishable by imprisonment is defined, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2203 (Ark. Crim. Code 1976), as follows:\n\u201cA person commits theft of property if he: (a) knowingly takes or exercises unauthorized control over . . . property of another person, with the purpose of depriving the owner thereof; or. . . .\u201d\nThe term \u201center or remain unlawfully\u201d as used in the burglary statute is defined, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2001(3) (Ark. Crim. Code 1976), as follows:\n\u201c(3) \u2018Enter or remain unlawfully\u2019 means to enter or remain in or upon premises when not licensed or privileged to do so . . . .\u201d\nAn \u201coccupiable structure\u201d is defined, Ark. Sat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2001(1) (Ark. Crim. Code 1976), as follows:\n\u201c(1) \u2018Occupiable structure\u2019 means a vehicle, building, or other structure;\n(a) where any person lives or carries on a business or other calling; ... .\u201d\nThe record shows that Rodney and Lloyd Bise own and operate Bise Auto Sales and Bise Body Shop on Highway #79 in Stuttgart, Arkansas. Appellant was regularly employed as a policeman for the City of Stuttgart. He was also a part-time employee of Bise Body Shop. The building housing the body shop was broken into on April 16, 1976. That incident was investigated by Rodney Bise and appellant at approximately 1:15 a.m. Later that morning about 3:00 a.m. appellant returned and removed from the building some money that Lloyd Bise kept in a box in the bathroom. When Lloyd ascertained that the money was missing he called appellant who told him that he knew nothing about the money. A few days later appellant returned the money claiming that he only took the money for safe keeping and as a prank or joke on his friend Lloyd Bise.\nUnder the evidence there is no question but that appellant entered a business building at 3:00 a.m. when it was not open for business. We therefore conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the trial court\u2019s conclusion that he unlawfully entered a building when not licensed to do so.\nPerhaps a closer factual issue exists as to the purpose for which appellant took the money. However, when we consider the conversations between appellant and Lloyd Bise as to who the likely suspects were and whether finger prints could be lifted together with the circumstances under thich the money was returned, we cannot say that there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court\u2019s finding that a theft occurred when appellant took the money.\nPOINT II. Appellant also contends that the judgment is void because of the clerical error in showing that the offense was committed on April 26th when all the proof showed that it was committed on April 16th. While appellant is correct about the date, he does not demonstrate how he has been prejudiced by the erroneous date inserted in the judgment. We do not reverse a judgment for harmless or nonprejudicial irregularities, Underdown v. State, 220 Ark. 834, 250 S.W. 2d 131 (1952). We consider the matter of the erroneous date to be both harmless and non-prejudicial.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hickman, JJ\u25a0",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Givens & Buzbee, by: Art Givens, for appellant.",
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Joseph H. Purvis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jerry HILL v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 77-42\n551 S.W. 2d 200\nOpinion delivered May 31, 1977\n(Division II)\nGivens & Buzbee, by: Art Givens, for appellant.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Joseph H. Purvis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0711-01",
  "first_page_order": 751,
  "last_page_order": 753
}