{
  "id": 1672710,
  "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. Joe SCARMARDO",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Scarmardo",
  "decision_date": "1978-05-01",
  "docket_number": "CR 78-9",
  "first_page": "396",
  "last_page": "398",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 Ark. 396"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "565 S.W.2d 414"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "259 Ark. 802",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1619189
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/259/0802-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 2637,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.866,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3841146237047815e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6411354484373414
    },
    "sha256": "a13fdbf82405e4d25282af0553c05a097977299a7d967a396c71d1bf29d69cab",
    "simhash": "1:532fcd3467a661d8",
    "word_count": 420
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:12:30.639178+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of Arkansas v. Joe SCARMARDO"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellee was charged in municipal'c\u2019ourt with theft of services and breaking or entering in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2204 and \u00a7 41-2003 (Repl. 1977) respectively. The charges resulted from appellee allegedly securing electrical services without payment by breaking into an electrical meter. That court found appellee guilty of theft of services, after the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor, and.assessed his punishment at ninety days\u2019 imprisonment and a $500 fine. The appellee was certified to the circuit court on the felony charge of breaking or entering. That court granted appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss finding the charge of breaking or entering under \u00a7 41-2003 did not encompass the alleged acts of the defendant. Appellant contends it was error to grant the motion. The court was correct.\nThe information alleged that appellee committed the crime of breaking or entering when he broke into \u201ca product dispenser, to wit: an electrical meter unit, . . . for the purpose of committing a theft.\u201d \u00a7 41-2003 provides that a person commits the offense of breaking or entering if \u201cfor the purpose of committing a theft or felony he enters or breaks into any building, structure, vehicle, vault, safe, cash register, money vending machine, product dispenser, money depository, safety deposit box, coin telephone, coin box or other similar container, apparatus, or equipment.\u201d The commentary to that statute states, inter alia, that defining the offense serves the function \u201cto reach larcenous conduct directed against vending machines and other types of containers likely to-contain money.\u201d\nIt is well settled that penal statutes are strictly construed with all doubts resolved in favor of the defendant, and nothing is taken as intended which is not clearly expressed. Austin v. State, 259 Ark. 802, 536 S.W. 2d 699 (1976). Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1968) defines the word \u201cdispenser\u201d as \u201ca mechanical device for vending merchandise (as candy, gum, or postage stamps).\u201d There also a meter is defined as a measuring device. Adoption of the construction urged by appellant would extend the coverage of \u00a7 41-2003 by requiring us to read into the statute an intent which is certainly not clearly expressed. Here we cannot agree that an electrical meter is a \u201cproduct dispenser\u201d or a \u201csimilar container\u201d within the meaning of the statute.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Robert M. Lyford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.",
      "Frank W. Booth, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. Joe SCARMARDO\nCR 78-9\n565 S.W. 2d 414\nOpinion delivered May 1, 1978\n(In Banc)\n[Rehearing denied June 5, 1978.]\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Robert M. Lyford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.\nFrank W. Booth, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0396-01",
  "first_page_order": 422,
  "last_page_order": 424
}