{
  "id": 1750250,
  "name": "Paula Curlin RASMUSSEN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rasmussen v. State",
  "decision_date": "1982-10-25",
  "docket_number": "CR 82-78",
  "first_page": "238",
  "last_page": "241",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "277 Ark. 238"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "641 S.W.2d 699"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "270 Ark. 781",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1709251
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/270/0781-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "623 S.W.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 Ark. 154",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1754988
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/274/0154-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 Ark. 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1174919
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/272/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 Ark. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1753606
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/275/0313-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 432,
    "char_count": 5900,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.824,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1932191962530914e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5918576720109937
    },
    "sha256": "a3578426bfdf9f9586863f14dabc18fae451b395d5d49271a5e40867c2c71339",
    "simhash": "1:cb6a88315a0026f2",
    "word_count": 984
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:10.927944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Paula Curlin RASMUSSEN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nA jury found Paula Rasmussen guilty of the first degree murder of her boyfriend, Clarence Corley, and sentenced her to life in prison. Rasmussen\u2019s arguments on appeal concern the trial judge\u2019s admission and exclusion of evidence. We find that he did not abuse his discretion and affirm the conviction.\nRasmussen and Corley lived and worked together in North Little Rock. On their way home from work on April 10, 1981, they began to argue about Corley\u2019s attention to another woman. They had both been drinking beer for several hours and the argument became more heated when they got to their apartment. Rasmussen testified that Corley asked her for the keys to his truck so he could leave but that she refused. She said she was fearful that Corley was going to physically injure her, so she grabbed a pistol out of the gunrack in their apartment and took the safety strap off. Rasmussen said that Corley then slapped her hand and the gun, a .38 caliber double-action revolver, went off, shooting Corley in the chest. She said that he told her to call an ambulance; but, according to the doctor who performed the autopsy, he died instantly upon being shot.\nA neighbor said she heard the arguing, the shot, and heard Corley tell Rasmussen to call an ambulance. The neighbor then called the police. When the police arrived, Corley was dead. The police officers took her to the p\u00f3lice station, warned her of her rights, and she gave a statement which essentially said that she had pointed the gun at Corley in self defense, and that Corley pushed the gun causing it to fire. Two of Corley\u2019s daughters testified that before the homicide they had heard Rasmussen say she could kill Corley for his infidelity.\nRasmussen raises three points on appeal. The first concerns a pair of eyeglasses that the defense had made which purportedly would allow a person with normal vision to see as Rasmussen sees without her glasses. Apparently, Rasmussen has very poor vision when uncorrected. Rasmussen said that Corley had knocked her glasses off before the shooting. The defense\u2019s theory was that when Rasmussen shot Corley, her vision was so blurred that she felt more apprehension of bodily harm than the situation actually presented, thus supporting her claim of acting in self defense. The defense offered no expert proof of the weakness of Rasmussen\u2019s vision, nor any expert testimony that the specially made glasses would enable the j urors to see what Rasmussen saw without her glasses. The trial judge pointed out that he had no way of knowing whether the glasses were effective or whether there were any jurors with perfect vision so that the glasses could work anyway. The admissibility of demonstrative evidence is discretionary with the trial j udge, and in considering the facts that the trial judge had before him, we find no abuse of that discretion. Edgemon v. State, 275 Ark. 313, 630 S.W.2d 26 (1982); see McCORMICK\u2019S EVIDENCE \u00a7 202 (1972 ed.).\nTwo photographs of Corley\u2019s body were introduced which Rasmussen claims were inadmissible because of their inflammatory nature. One was a color photograph of the victim lying dead on the bed where the police found him. Another was a black and white photograph of the victim from his abdomen to his head. The admissibility of photographs lies within the trial court\u2019s discretion. A photograph is ordinarily admissible when it shows the nature, extent, and location of the wounds. Spillers v. State, 272 Ark. 212, 613 S.W.2d 387 (1981). We find no abuse of the trial judge\u2019s discretion.\nRasmussen\u2019s third point for reversal is that the trial court erred by allowing evidence of Corley\u2019s intoxication level to go to the jury. After Rasmussen said Corley had ten beers, the State asked Rasmussen whether she would \u201c... be surprised to know that the autopsy report showed that he [Corley] had a blood alcohol level of only .07 and the legal limit for intoxication \u2014 the lowest level is . 10? Would that kind of surprise you?\u201d The defense objected, stating that that was an incorrect statement of the law. The following exchange took place:\nDEFENSE COUNSEL:\nYour Honor, I\u2019m going to object to that. That\u2019s not a proper statement of the law. The lowest intoxication level is .05.\nTHE STATE:\nI think the Arkansas law is .10.\nTHE COURT:\nI believe that\u2019s correct.\nDEFENSE COUNSEL:\n.10 raises a presumption that this man had been drinking.\nTHE COURT:\nIt raises a presumption that he was under the influence, I believe is a proper statement of the law. Proceed.\nThe attorneys and the court were no doubt referring to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-1031.1 (Repl. 1979). On appeal, the appellant argues that the objection should have been sustained for four reasons: (1) Because Corley\u2019s autopsy report had not been introduced; (2) because blood-alcohol content cannot be admitted into evidence until several statutory requirements have been met; (3) because the trial judge\u2019s comments supported the prosecutor\u2019s declaration; and, (4) the trial judge\u2019s comments were misleading. The defense attorney did not try to prevent the discussion of the law; rather, he joined in and argued his interpretation of the statute. Furthermore, the only objection made by the defense at the trial was that the prosecutor\u2019s question to Rasmussen was an incorrect statement of the law. Under those circumstances, we find that he did not properly preserve his right to raise these arguments on appeal. Swaite v. State, 274 Ark. 154, 623 S.W.2d 176 (1981); Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980).\nWe have reviewed the record for other errors, and found none.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lessenberry & Carpenter, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: William C. Mann, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Paula Curlin RASMUSSEN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 82-78\n641 S.W.2d 699\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 25, 1982\n[Rehearing denied December 6, 1982.]\nLessenberry & Carpenter, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: William C. Mann, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0238-01",
  "first_page_order": 258,
  "last_page_order": 261
}