{
  "id": 1712468,
  "name": "William J. FOUNTAIN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fountain v. State",
  "decision_date": "1980-06-30",
  "docket_number": "CR 80-114",
  "first_page": "454",
  "last_page": "456",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "269 Ark. 454"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "601 S.W.2d 862"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "322 A. 2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "499"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 N.J. Super, 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J. Super.",
      "case_ids": [
        320544
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nj-super/129/0157-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "405 P. 2d 740",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        4663937
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/158/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 Kan. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "case_ids": [
        78842
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/kan/205/0009-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "520 P. 2d 912",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2147510
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/or-app/17/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 N.E. 2d 893",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 Mass. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        307071
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/368/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "561 P. 2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10454925
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/p2d/561/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "569 P. 2d 1211",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1911,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Wash. App. 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        471499
      ],
      "year": 1911,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash-app/18/0517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "395 A. 2d 759",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        8028047
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/a2d/395/0759-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.M. 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571041
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/91/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 S.E. 2d 631",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "635"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 2945,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.724,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.688118148998595e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8272613577084996
    },
    "sha256": "4249bbc7d4ffa18a6ef423cc4fc96670f979698358644d714b55dcddcf9817e8",
    "simhash": "1:83874235061bcbcb",
    "word_count": 502
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:47.346821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William J. FOUNTAIN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM\nAppellant has filed a pro se motion to complete the record. The State has not objected to his motion. He alleges that discussions between the trial court, counsel and himself on several enumerated occasions, which were overruled, were not recorded and, thus only appear in the transcript as \u201coff the record\u201d notations. He also contends that \u201cin chambers\u201d conferences between the court and counsel were only noted as being \u201coff the record.\u201d\nAfter reviewing appellant\u2019s allegations, we conclude that a few of the conferences held at the bench and in chambers were not recorded and are only noted as having been held. It appears that substantive matters may have been discussed during these conferences.\nTherefore, we remand this case to the trial court to settle the record in accordance with Appellate Procedure Rule 6.\nWe also take this opportunity to express our concern about \u201coff the record\u201d conferences held in chambers or at the bench. We are concerned, as are other courts, about \u201coff the record\u201d conferences. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals noted State v. Boling, 246 S.E. 2d 631, 635 (W.Va. 1978), \u201cThe question of what portions of a criminal trial should be recorded by the court reporter is a subject of increasing judicial attention.\u201d Each state approaches the problem differently depending on the wording and construction of the particular court reporter acts. Arkansas\u2019 is Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-352 (Repl. 1962).\nThe consensus of the various states is that the practice should be to record discussions between court and counsel occurring during trial that pertain to substantive matters involving that trial. See, State v. Boling, supra; State v. Zamora, 91 N.M. 470, 575 P. 2d 1355 (1978); Braxton v. United States, 395 A. 2d 759 (C.A. D.C. 1978); State v. Cunningham, 18 Wash. App. 517, 569 P. 2d 1211 (1911); State v. Buckalew, 561 P. 2d 289 (Alk. 1977); Commonwealth v. Swenson, 368 Mass. 268, 331 N.E. 2d 893 (1975); State v. Longoria, 520 P. 2d 912 (Or. 1974); State v. Guffey, 205 Kan. 9, 468 P. 2d 254 (1970); Quitana v. People, 405 P. 2d 740 (Colo. 1965).\nWhile it is the responsibility of the trial court to see that a fair and adequate record of a trial is preserved, counsel must be diligent and responsible in seeing that one is made. \u201cThe complete transcript is of crucial importance for a meaningful review of both the appellate court and to new counsel on appeal.\u201d State v. Green, 129 N.J. Super, 157, 322 A. 2d 495, 499 (1974). All bench conferences and in chambers conferences should be \u201con the record\u201d unless they involve matters unrelated to the current trial, in which case, a note to that effect may be made.\nRemanded to the trial court for settlement of the record.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William J. FOUNTAIN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 80-114\n601 S.W. 2d 862\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 30, 1980\nE. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0454-01",
  "first_page_order": 492,
  "last_page_order": 494
}