{
  "id": 1754977,
  "name": "Robert JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1981-11-23",
  "docket_number": "CR 81-25",
  "first_page": "317",
  "last_page": "319",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "274 Ark. 317"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "624 S.W.2d 437"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 786",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616823
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0786-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 Ark. 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718560
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/217/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 Ark. 772",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1724125
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/241/0772-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 Ark. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1597620
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/248/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 Ark. 870",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1629891
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/252/0870-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756164
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 Ark. 671",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1709225
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/270/0671-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "445 U.S. 573",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1777746
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/445/0573-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3272,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.796,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.451602703707877e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8041117455110317
    },
    "sha256": "15a88967c8efda06db38cdc3a35ab3f56993cb911f936e924f81e148bde88f41",
    "simhash": "1:648c0426622eb6b2",
    "word_count": 537
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:01:13.587143+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nIn 1980 appellant Robert Jackson was convicted of first degree murder. He appealed contending that evidence was wrongfully seized during a warrantless search. While that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). It held that a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect\u2019s home to make a routine arrest results in an invalid arrest unless exigent circumstances exist. The exclusionary rule then prohibits the introduction of evidence seized during an invalid arrest. State v. Block, 270 Ark. 671, 606 S.W. 2d 362 (1980). After Payton, supra, came down we remanded appellant\u2019s case for an evidentiary hearing to see if exigent circumstances existed which would justify appellant\u2019s warrantless arrest in his home and that, in turn, would determine the validity of the seizure of evidence. Jackson v. State, 271 Ark. 71, 607 S.W. 2d 371 (1980).\nUpon remand, the trial court allowed two police officers to testify about statements which others gave to them about appellant. These statements, coupled with their observations, led them to believe exigent circumstances existed. Appellant contends that this type of statement is hearsay and should not have been admitted. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.\nIn a hearing to determine whether exigent circumstances existed a police officer may testify about the information he relied upon to justify a warrantless arrest and seizure of evidence. This testimony is admitted to show the bases of the officers\u2019 actions, not to prove its truthfulness. Statements may be admissible to show they were made as opposed to showing the truth of the matter asserted. This type of evidence is not hearsay. Rule 801 (c), Arkansas Uniform Rules of Evidence, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-1001 (Repl. 1979), provides:\nHearsay. \u201cHearsay\u201d is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\nThis rule is consistent with our earlier cases holding that a statement made out of court is not hearsay if offered for the purpose of proving the statement was made. Nowlin v. State, 252 Ark. 870, 481 S.W. 2d 320 (1972); Liberto & Mothershed v. State, 248 Ark. 350, 451 S.W. 2d 464 (1970); City of Springdale v. Weathers, 241 Ark. 772, 410 S.W. 2d 754 (1967); Motors Insurance Corp. v. Lopez, 217 Ark. 203, 229 S.W. 2d 228 (1950).\nMoreover, a warrantless arrest is to be evaluated on the basis of the collective information of the police. Woodall v. State, 260 Ark. 786, 543 S.W. 2d 957 (1976). Rule 4.1 (d), A. R. Grim. P., Vol. 4A (Repl. 1977) embodies this principle and is applicable:\nA warrantless arrest by an officer not personally possessed of information sufficient to constitute reasonable cause is valid where the arresting officer is instructed to make the arrest by a police agency which collectively possesses knowledge sufficient to constitute reasonable cause.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James W. Haddock of Holloway ir Haddock, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: William C. Mann, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 81-25\n624 S.W. 2d 437\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 23, 1981\nJames W. Haddock of Holloway ir Haddock, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: William C. Mann, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0317-01",
  "first_page_order": 345,
  "last_page_order": 347
}