{
  "id": 1668871,
  "name": "Robert Lee MARSHALL, a/k/a Robert Lee JONES v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Marshall v. State",
  "decision_date": "1978-09-11",
  "docket_number": "CR 78-58",
  "first_page": "210",
  "last_page": "212",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 Ark. 210"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "570 S.W.2d 261"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "259 Ark. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1619097
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/259/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 809",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672634
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0809-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 2862,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.915,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43626520310643596
    },
    "sha256": "7dbe99a91d555a4cbc32c44e491861bb290dfacc77cd807f8987af6fbf23979b",
    "simhash": "1:00a884c948286989",
    "word_count": 477
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:41.361067+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Harris, C J., and Fogleman and Byrd, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Lee MARSHALL, a/k/a Robert Lee JONES v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nRobert Lee Marshall, who is also known as Robert Lee Jones, was convicted in the Pulaski County Circuit Court of terroristic threatening and three counts of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to a total of twenty-three years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.\nOn appeal he alleges one error: the trial court should have granted a mistrial when a state\u2019s witness mentioned other criminal conduct of Marshall\u2019s that was not the subject of his trial. We find no error.\nMarshall was tried before the judge without a jury and reference was made by a police officer to other criminal misconduct. The officer, in testifying, related that Marshall was originally detained because he was suspected of driving a stolen vehicle. At this point Marshall\u2019s attorney moved for a mistrial. The court sustained the objection to the reference to the stolen vehicle and stated the evidence would not be considered. The trial court was correct in its ruling.\nThe issue raised is very similar to that discussed in a recent decision of ours, Hickey v. State, 263 Ark. 809, 569 S.W. 2d 64 (1978), concurring opinion issued on denial of rehearing on September 5, 1978.\nIn the Hickey case the trial court, sitting as a jury, permitted, over the defendant\u2019s objection, testimony of a police officer that referred to a previous conviction of Hickey\u2019s. The officer was reading a confession by Hickey when reference was made to the fact that Hickey was on parole for burglary. We found the admission of the evidence to be prejudicial error. The reference to previous misconduct was not admissible under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-1001, Rule 404(b) (Supp. 1977).\nWe rejected the argument that a trial before a judge, sitting as a jury, should be treated differently from a case tried to a jury when the issue of prejudice from this type of evidence is admitted; and the court, overruling a proper objection to inadmissible evidence, presumably considered it.\nThe difference in this case and the Hickey case is simply that in Hickey the trial judge overruled the defendant\u2019s objection to the reference to prior criminal misconduct; we, therefore, assume that the court considered the evidence. In this case the trial judge sustained the objection to the reference to other misconduct and stated that the evidence would be disregarded.\nTherefore, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, we find no prejudicial error requiring the conviction of Marshall to be reversed. Cary v. State, 259 Ark. 510, 534 S.W. 2d 230 (1976).\nAffirmed.\nWe agree.\nHarris, C J., and Fogleman and Byrd, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Achor, Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: James E. Smedley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert Lee MARSHALL, a/k/a Robert Lee JONES v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 78-58\n570 S.W. 2d 261\nOpinion delivered September 11, 1978\n(Division II)\nJohn W. Achor, Public Defender, for appellant.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: James E. Smedley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0210-01",
  "first_page_order": 238,
  "last_page_order": 240
}