{
  "id": 1675835,
  "name": "Tollie WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1977-10-24",
  "docket_number": "CR 77-98",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "341",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 Ark. 339"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "556 S.W.2d 657"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "131 P. 1190",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Kan. 678",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "case_ids": [
        8865479
      ],
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/kan/89/0678-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 U.S. 951",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11368097,
        11367991,
        11367591,
        11367889,
        11367729,
        11367478,
        11367543,
        11367671,
        11367799
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/343/0951-09",
        "/us/343/0951-08",
        "/us/343/0951-03",
        "/us/343/0951-07",
        "/us/343/0951-05",
        "/us/343/0951-01",
        "/us/343/0951-02",
        "/us/343/0951-04",
        "/us/343/0951-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 F. 2d 631",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1214586
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/192/0631-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 294,
    "char_count": 3694,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.332351283999189e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8736603948724424
    },
    "sha256": "3da017ae9ca6bba2936ba48a52154974b937252ea88e70d2f20baf7b88ab244a",
    "simhash": "1:838c4a8a5c01914a",
    "word_count": 611
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:42.068781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Roy, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Tollie WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant was tried before the court, found guilty of robbery and sentenced to three years\u2019 imprisonment. He contends that the evidence was insufficient inasmuch as the record fails to establish that he was resisting apprehension when he applied physical force against the arresting officer. Ark. Grim. Code \u00a7 41-2103 (1976) reads: \u201cA person commits robbery if with the purpose of committing a theft or resisting apprehension immediately thereafter, he employs or threatens to immediately employ physical force upon another.\u201d Appellant admits there was physical force within the meaning of \u00a7 41-2103 but argues that since he was already arrested before any force was employed by him, \u00a7 41-2103 is inapplicable because he was not resisting apprehension immediately after the alleged theft.\nThe concepts of arrest and apprehension are used interchangeably \u201cwhen employed in connection with the taking of a person into custody.\u201d 6A C.J.S. Arrests \u00a7 2. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, 140 (4th ed. 1951) defines arrest as \u201c[t]he apprehending or detaining of the person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime.\u201d Apprehension is defined there (p. 130) as \u201c[t]he seizure, taking, or arrest of a person on a criminal charge.\u201d Also the concepts of arrest and apprehension have been judicially defined. In Patterson v. United States, 192 F. 2d 631 (5th Cir. 1951), cert. den. 343 U.S. 951 (1951), arrest was defined as \u201c \u2018the apprehension or detention of the person of another in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for an alleged or supposed crime.\u2019 \u201d To the same effect is 5 Am. Jur. 2d \u00a7 3. Apprehension was defined as \u201c \u2018the capture or arrest of a person on a criminal charge\u2019 \u201d in State v. Martin, 89 Kan. 678, 131 P. 1190 (1913). Immediate is defined by Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 884 as \u201ca reasonable time in view of particular facts and circumstances of case under consideration.\u201d\nHere the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, showed that an officer observed appellant conceal a roast in his clothing and clear the check-out line without paying for it when he paid for other items. The officer then approached appellant, told him he was under arrest and advised him that he would have to come with him to the office in the store. On the way appellant broke loose from the officer\u2019s restraint. In the ensuing fight, appellant was subdued and handcuffed. The officer suffered an injured back and a broken sternum. The evidence is amply sufficient to establish the elements of robbery as that offense is defined by \u00a7 41-2103; i.e., a theft and the employment of force immediately after the theft to resist apprehension or arrest.\nAppellant next contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a grocery cash register receipt. Appellant argues that the foundation was insufficient to show that the ticket or receipt was appellant\u2019s. The officer testified that \u201c[a]lso [in] picking up the groceries that he had purchased, I recovered the receipt showing the things that he had purchased. \u201d He verified \u201c [t]hat was the only receipt that was found there, and it checked with the items in the sack. \u201d The grocery receipt totaled $5.01. Appellant later testified that the total cost of his purchases \u201cranged to about six-something, five or six-something.\u201d There was ample foundation for the admission of the grocery receipt as evidence.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Roy, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McArthur & Johnson, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Robert J. Govar, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Tollie WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 77-98\n556 S.W. 2d 657\nOpinion delivered October 24, 1977\n(Division II)\nMcArthur & Johnson, P.A., for appellant.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Robert J. Govar, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 375,
  "last_page_order": 377
}
