{
  "id": 1668758,
  "name": "Johnny Charles BROWN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. State",
  "decision_date": "1979-01-29",
  "docket_number": "CR 78-149",
  "first_page": "944",
  "last_page": "945",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 Ark. 944"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.804,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.326800278147842e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8733316112252104
    },
    "sha256": "84517ef582cad67d59f1c2e085c8471e4e8884857b67b756cad968d0800032e4",
    "simhash": "1:03e3d2970c2cde06",
    "word_count": 373
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:41.361067+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Purtle, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Johnny Charles BROWN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nPrior to the rape trial of Johnny Charles Brown, the State filed a motion in limine, seeking to prohibit any mention of prior sexual conduct between the prosecuting witness and Brown. From the trial court\u2019s interlocutory ruling that the prior sexual contact between appellant and the prosecutrix was not relevant to Brown\u2019s defense of consent, Brown brings this appeal pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1810.2(c) (Repl. 1977).\nThe record reflects that the prosecutrix had known Brown for 16 years but had not seen him in three years. About one week prior to the alleged rape she had met Brown at the employment office and had asked him to stop by her apartment some time. Brown did just that and found the prosecutrix scantily clad in a nightgown during the middle of the day. It was at this time that the alleged rape occurred. On cross-examination at the pre-trial hearing, the prosecutrix testified:\n\u201cQ. How long were you all boyfriend and girlfriend?\nA. Boyfriend and girlfriend. We went to bed. We were never \u2014 it was never nothing serious.\nTHE COURT: Talk so I can hear you.\nTHE WITNESS: We went to bed together maybe three years ago, maybe once or twice. I couldn\u2019t tell you how many times. We were never serious about each other.\u201d\nThe Uniform Rules of Evidence, Rule 401 provides:\n\u201c \u2018Relevant evidence\u2019 means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. \u201d\nThe proffered evidence of the prior relationship of the parties as described by the prosecutrix certainly tends to make the appellant\u2019s defense of consent more probable in view of the invitation from the prosecutrix and her mode of dress at the time she let him into her abode. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony.\nReversed and remanded.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Purtle, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Achor, Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Jesse L. Kearney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Johnny Charles BROWN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 78-149\nOpinion delivered January 29, 1979\n(Division I)\nJohn W. Achor, Public Defender, for appellant.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Jesse L. Kearney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0944-01",
  "first_page_order": 980,
  "last_page_order": 981
}