{
  "id": 1712407,
  "name": "David Allen SCHWINDLING v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schwindling v. State",
  "decision_date": "1980-06-30",
  "docket_number": "CR 80-71",
  "first_page": "388",
  "last_page": "390",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "269 Ark. 388"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "602 S.W.2d 639"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "254 Ark. 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1624069
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/254/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 822",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1664816
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/265/0822-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2379,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.684,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.648188362833621e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45169235735365265
    },
    "sha256": "be6965ff4bff15e28c9c1a42988ad0020050ebd77c9820d36100f3b8885bfe95",
    "simhash": "1:12fa0470a282fed2",
    "word_count": 392
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:47.346821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "David Allen SCHWINDLING v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe appellant was charged with burglary and theft of property arising out of the theft of a quantity of controlled drugs. See Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 41-2002 and 41-2203 (Repl. 1977). He was convicted of both offenses and sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 years and 10 years, respectively. His only contention for reversal, through present counsel, is that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the sole issue raised by the evidence; i.e., the existence of the ordinary defense of self-induced intoxication.\nAppellant presents a three-fold argument: (1) the existence of the defense of self-induced intoxication was the sole issue in the trial of the case; (2) self-induced intoxication is a \u201csimple defense\u201d to the crimes charged and the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-110 (1) (a) and (3) (c) require that such an instruction be given; and (3) the reasons supporting the \u201cabsent request\u201d prohibition against raising the issue on appeal are strongly outweighed by fair trial considerations. Even assuming arguendo that the defense was sufficiently raised by the evidence, the court is not required to give a specific instruction when, as here, none was requested. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2134 (Repl. 1977); Tyler v. State, 265 Ark. 822, 581 S.W. 2d 328 (1979); and Roberts and Charles v. State, 254 Ark. 39, 491 S.W. 2d 390 (1973). We do not construe \u00a7 41-110 (1) (a) and (3) (c) to require the trial court, sua sponte, give an instruction on an ordinary defense, as asserted here. The court instructed the jury that to sustain a burglary charge, the state must prove the appellant \u201centered . . . with the purpose of committing therein a theft of property,\u201d arid that to sustain a theft charge, the state must prove the appellant \u201cknowingly took . . . unauthorized control over the property of another person with the purpose of depriving the owner thereof.\u201d The jury was clearly instructed on the statutory definitions of the terms \u201cpurpose\u201d and \u201cknowingly,\u201d and that the burden was on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of each offense.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen Engstrom, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Catherine Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "David Allen SCHWINDLING v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 80-71\n602 S.W. 2d 639\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 30, 1980\nRehearing denied August 25, 1980\nStephen Engstrom, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Catherine Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0388-01",
  "first_page_order": 426,
  "last_page_order": 428
}