{ "id": 1744776, "name": "Karleene ROWDEAN & Huey P. ROWDEAN v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Rowdean v. State", "decision_date": "1983-07-11", "docket_number": "CR 83-33", "first_page": "146", "last_page": "149", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "280 Ark. 146" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "655 S.W.2d 413" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "274 Ark. 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1754992 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/274/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 Ark. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1719780 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/267/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 Ark. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1750248 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/277/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 Ark. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1751554 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/276/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 Ark. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718140 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/273/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 Ark. 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1750191 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/277/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ark. 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1650249 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/223/0330-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 343, "char_count": 4789, "ocr_confidence": 0.856, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.367319318862323e-07, "percentile": 0.7949967353309015 }, "sha256": "7d239c2db62ad22c3ec2fc78ba9b94d68fc79c4b3a402dc9f3901c046c7c46a7", "simhash": "1:c3288a02621e94f7", "word_count": 809 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:12:47.726191+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Karleene ROWDEAN & Huey P. ROWDEAN v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nKarleene Rowdean was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment for shooting Billy Pat Mullens outside a nightclub near Camden, Arkansas, in the early morning hours of June 13, 1982. Her husband, Huey Rowdean, in a joint trial, was convicted of hindering, harboring, and concealing her in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2805 (Repl. 1977) and sentenced to one year imprisonment.\nWe reverse her conviction because the trial court received evidence of two prior acts of misconduct which were not relevant to the murder charge.\nThe first instance concerned an incident earlier the same evening at Graham\u2019s Drive-In near Camden. While her husband was shooting dice in the rear of the establishment, Karleene Rowdean was observed by the owner of Graham\u2019s Drive-In, pulling a gun on another female patron of the establishment.\nThis incident, totally unrelated to the charge in question, was clearly inadmissible, in Alford v. State, 223 Ark. 330, 266 S.W.2d 804 (1980), we explained why other wrongs were not admissible to prove a separate charge. That principle is embodied in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-1001, Rule 404 (b), which reads:\nOther Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.\nThe evidence of the incident at Graham\u2019s was not relevant to the motive, opportunity, intent, preparation or plan of the murder charge in question. It is an instance of the State using a separate prior act to prove another charge and, consequently, it was highly prejudicial. Nor was the Graham\u2019s Drive-In incident a part of an ongoing, uninterrupted course of conduct. Cf. Hobbs v. State, 277 Ark. 271, 641 S.W.2d 9 (1982) and Sumlin v. State, 273 Ark. 185, 617 S.W.2d 372 (1981).\nThe other incident occurred a month or so before the killing of Mullens at another nightclub near Camden, The Godfather. Karleene Rowdean was asked by the State on cross-examination if she ever carried a knife and she said no. The State then called Clifton Earl Brown to testify that she had pulled a knife on him at The Godfather. The court refused to allow the evidence for impeachment purposes, and was correct in that regard. See Rhodes v. State, 276 Ark. 203, 634 S.W.2d 107 (1982). But the court permitted the evidence as probative of who the aggressor was in Mullens\u2019 death. That, of course, is evidence of a character trait. Karleene Rowdean had not placed her general character in evidence. Nor had she offered any evidence of her character for peacefulness, or the victim\u2019s for violence. See Halfacre v. State, 277 Ark. 168, 639 S.W.2d 734 (1982). If the State could offer the evidence as it did, then, in effect, it could offer such evidence in its case in chief. The only possible justification for such a proposition is a statement in Weinstein that reads:\nEvidence of specific acts is permissible to prove character pursuant to Rule 405 (b) in cases in which the character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense. 2 WEINSTEIN\u2019S EVIDENCE par. 405 [4] (1982).\nWhile Karleene Rowdean did plead self-defense, or justification, we do not find that permits the State to offer evidence of specific instances of prior misconduct to show she may have been the aggressor. It was error to do so because her character is not an essential element of her claim of self-defense. (AMCI4105 was given to the jury: Justification \u2014 Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.)\nThere are other issues raised which should not arise on retrial. The State did not notify the defense it intended to call Clifton Earl Brown, and, undoubtedly, it made plans to do so. This was also error according to Williams v. State, 267 Ark. 527, 593 S.W.2d 8 (1980), and that error will not arise on retrial.\nIt is argued that the deceased had a \u201chabit\u201d of carrying a knife and an instruction was requested to that effect. The trial court apparently found the evidence short of establishing a \u201chabit\u201d and we cannot say he abused his discretion. See Ritchey v. Murray, 274 Ark. 388, 625 S.W.2d 476 (1981).\nNo argument at all is made that any error was committed as to Huey Rowdean\u2019s conviction; therefore, his conviction is affirmed.\nAffirmed as to Huey P. Rowdean.\nReversed and remanded as to Karleene Rowdean.", "type": "majority", "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Edwin A. Keaton, for appellants.", "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Karleene ROWDEAN & Huey P. ROWDEAN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 83-33\n655 S.W.2d 413\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 11, 1983\nEdwin A. Keaton, for appellants.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0146-01", "first_page_order": 172, "last_page_order": 175 }