{
  "id": 1750257,
  "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. Richard JAMISON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jamison",
  "decision_date": "1982-11-15",
  "docket_number": "CR 82-101",
  "first_page": "349",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "277 Ark. 349"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "641 S.W.2d 719"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3295,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.829,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.646299337626633e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49126319719798334
    },
    "sha256": "5228e811838fc2f40aa7e5ad58a62e5baddd5d8b2cf25ce86511132d26c4a302",
    "simhash": "1:0f1a0353ae640d7a",
    "word_count": 573
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:10.927944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of Arkansas v. Richard JAMISON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThis is an appeal by the State from a pre-trial order of the trial court dismissing a charge of theft against Richard Jamison. Actually what is sought in this case is an advisory opinion by this court. The trial court was wrong in dismissing the charge and the matter is remanded.\nJamison was charged with theft in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a741-2203 (Repl. 1977). He waived a jury and when the matter was before the court, his counsel presented a motion to dismiss, arguing that the facts in this case would not constitute theft. After counsel briefly informed the court of the facts, the court decided that the parties could stipulate to the facts and the court would rule the conduct did not amount to theft, thereby permitting the State to obtain a decision from us before a trial and save both parties time and expenses.\nBoth counsel agreed that generally the facts were that Jamison was a contract driver for ABC Trucking Company of North Little Rock, and that a dispute arose between Jamison and ABC about the amount of money due to Jamison for services performed. Apparently Jamison claimed he was due $800.00 and ABC acknowledged a debt of only $500.00. Jamison left the North Little Rock terminal with a truck and load belonging to ABC and refused to return it until he was paid what he claimed. After some negotiations, Jamison agreed to meet a representative of ABC in Dallas, Texas. When he did he was arrested for theft.\nThe question presented to the trial court was whether Jamison\u2019s actions deprived ABC of its property according to the criminal code. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2201.4 (b) defines a form of \u201cdeprive\u201d as withholding property or causing it to be withheld with the purpose to restore it only upon the payment of a reward or other compensation. On these skimpy facts, as stipulated by the lawyers, the trial judge found Jamison\u2019s conduct did not amount to depriving an owner of property until the payment of \u201cother compensation.\u201d\nThe court could have dismissed the charge because it did not state a criminal offense according to the ldw. (There was no challenge in that regard.) But there is no provision for dismissing a charge because the facts that will be presented do not amount to criminal conduct. Who decides what the facts are? The court was careful to get the parties to agree that the trial had not started, that is, double jeopardy could not be a defense if we reversed his decision. But if the trial had not started, how could facts be determined? The court could not accept the \u201cfacts\u201d unless it assumed the role of the fact finder, a posture he decided not to do. A.R.Cr.P., Rule 36.10 (Supp. 1981), which allows interlocutory appeals by the state, makes no provision for an appeal from a decision based on what the facts will be. Furthermore, in the crime of theft, there is always the element of intent, which of course has to be decided by the jury, or the court sitting without a jury. Certainly that issue was not resolved.\nThe matter is reversed and remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Leslie M. Powell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.",
      "William C. McArthur, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. Richard JAMISON\nCR 82-101\n641 S.W.2d 719\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 15, 1982\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Leslie M. Powell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.\nWilliam C. McArthur, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0349-01",
  "first_page_order": 369,
  "last_page_order": 371
}