{
  "id": 1742369,
  "name": "Louis O'RIORDAN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "O'Riordan v. State",
  "decision_date": "1984-02-21",
  "docket_number": "CR 84-8",
  "first_page": "424",
  "last_page": "428",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "281 Ark. 424"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "665 S.W.2d 255"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "256 Ark. 756",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724712
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/256/0756-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 S.W. 654",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1926,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 Ark. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1371645
      ],
      "year": 1926,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/170/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 Ark. 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1621251
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/258/0032-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 Ark. 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718029
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/244/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 765",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678877
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0765-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 Ark. 726",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1719930
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/267/0726-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 Ark. 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1715563
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/268/0552-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 531,
    "char_count": 8018,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.857,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.139728436420765e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9111071726575565
    },
    "sha256": "23a2dde380ed47ea56f039a7b7c4ae993e5b7ce47755b33216f422738992a68a",
    "simhash": "1:2b5aba47d27eb088",
    "word_count": 1385
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:39:06.319855+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle and Hollingsworth, JJ., dissent.",
      "Hollingsworth, J., joins in this dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Louis O\u2019RIORDAN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe appellant was charged with theft, a class C felony, in that by deception he obtained from Bill W. Willis a trailer worth over $100, with the purpose of depriving Willis of his property. The jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser included misdemeanor of theft of property and imposed a sentence of one year in jail. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 41-2203 and 41-901 (1977).] The Court of Appeals, citing Rule 29 (1) (c), transferred the case to this court. _\nChief among O\u2019Riordan\u2019s four arguments for reversal is his contention that the State failed to prove that O\u2019Riordan had a present intent to deprive Willis of his trailer when O\u2019Riordan obtained possession of the trailer. That question of subjective intent is often not susceptible of direct proof, but in this case there is substantial circumstantial evidence to support the jury\u2019s verdict.\nWhen the evidence is viewed most favorably to the verdict, as our rule requires, we conclude that the j ury could have found the events to have occurred in this manner:\nO\u2019Riordan had a flashing-sign business in Tur\u00f3n, Kansas. In January, 1980, he had an order to pick up 28 signs in Houston, Texas, and deliver them in Missouri. When he received that order he was returning from Illinois with a truck and a 6-foot trailer, too small to carry the 28 signs. On January 11 O\u2019Riordan stopped in Springfield, Missouri, at Guy Peck\u2019s combined service station and trailer rental business. O\u2019Riordan signed a rental contract by which he obtained a 14-foot flatbed trailer from Peck, the rent to be $50 and the trailer to be returned on January 18. Peck testified that the rent was never paid and he did not even hear from O\u2019Riordan until Mrs. O\u2019Riordan telephoned Peck four or five mnths later. Peck did not get his trailer back and still did not know where it was when the case was tried more than three years later.\nOn January 14, three days after O\u2019Riordan had rented Peck\u2019s trailer for a week, O\u2019Riordan stopped at Willis\u2019s welding shop in Wickes, Arkansas. O\u2019Riordan falsely told Willis that O\u2019Riordan (or his brother-in-law) owned the 14-foot trailer. O\u2019Riordan promised to pay Willis $900 for the 16-foot trailer that he is charged with having stolen and to return with the money in three days. He left the 14-foot trailer as security with Willis, from whom it was later recovered by a police officer. Willis testified that two or three days later O\u2019Riordan called to say that he was having trouble with his truck and would be a couple of days late. After that Willis did not hear from O\u2019Riordan again, though Willis tried for several months to reach him by phone. At the time of the trial, three years later, Willis had never seen his trailer again and did not know where it was.\nO\u2019Riordan testified at length, detailing the alleged mechanical problems, adverse weather conditions, and financial difficulties that had prevented him from returning Willis\u2019s trailer or paying for it. He said that he had the trailer in Joplin before Christmas, 1980, but it was stolen while he was at home in Tur\u00f3n. Thus according to O\u2019Riordan\u2019s own testimony, he had the trailer for almost a year without making any payment on it or returning it to Willis. The issue was simply one of fact, with the jury accepting the testimony of the State\u2019s witnesses. That finding, based upon substantial evidence, concludes our inquiry.\nThe appellant\u2019s other three arguments are plainly without merit. First, the asserted defects in the warrant for O\u2019Riordan\u2019s arrest are immaterial. An invalid arrest may call for the suppression of a confession or other evidence, but it does not entitle the defendant to be discharged from responsibility for the offense. Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974). Second, there was no denial of a speedy trial, for O\u2019Riordan resisted extradition in Kansas and was tried with sufficient promptness after he was returned to Arkansas. A.R.Cr.P. Rule 28.3 (e). Third, the State\u2019s asserted failure to prove the value of the trailer is immaterial. O\u2019Riordan himself indicated by his testimony that it was worth $700; further, no minimum value is required for the jury\u2019s finding of theft as a misdemeanor. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2203; AMCI 2203-P.\nAffirmed.\nPurtle and Hollingsworth, JJ., dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice,\ndissenting. I dissent because I think the complaining witness, Bill W. Willis, used the criminal laws of this state, by and with the aid and consent of local townspeople, to try to collect a civil debt. According to the record Mr. Willis sold the appellant a 16 foot shop-made trailer for $900 on credit. In fact appellant executed a promissory note which was due on the 17th day of January, 1980. The seller also gave a bill of sale to the appellant. After the shop-made trailer was loaded for the first time, in Houston, Texas, it developed problems which necessitated repair. Appellant called Willis on January 17, 1980, and tried to get Willis to deduct the cost of repairs from the price of the trailer. Appellant called Willis again on January 19, 1980, from his home and advised him of the difficulties he was having with the trailer. I think the facts clearly reveal that appellant had financial problems and was unable to pay the promissory note when it was due. Within a few days after the note was due Willis caused criminal charges to be filed against the appellant.\nI suppose the reason no cases are cited in the majority opinion is that this may be the first time the state of Arkansas has imprisoned a person for debt. I certainly hope the practice will not extend to other credit purchases such as automobiles. On two occasions the Arkansas Court of Appeals has construed Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2205 (1) (Repl. 1977). Wiley v. State, 268 Ark. 552, 594 S.W.2d 57 (1980) and Cates v. State, 267 Ark. 726, 589 S.W.2d 598 (1979). In Wiley the accused had purchased building material from the prosecuting witness. Wiley promised to pay for the materials on a certain date but he failed to pay. The prosecuting witness went to the site where the materials were to be used and found a vacant lot. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the conviction of theft by receiving. In Cates the defendant received money to pay off liens but instead converted the money to his own use. The Court of Appeals also reversed and dismissed that conviction.\nOur own court has held that \u201cA false representation as an inducement to pay money that something thereafter was to be or was not to be done is not a false pretense.\u201d Bakri v. State, 261 Ark. 765, 551 S.W.2d 215 (1977). We also reversed and dismissed a conviction for false pretense in the case of Ross v. State, 244 Ark. 103, 424 S.W.2d 168 (1968). The defendant had borrowed money from a bank to purchase cattle. The bank was supposed to have a lien on the cattle. Ross never purchased the cattle but instead converted the money to his own use. Ross was cited with approval in Dean v. State, 258 Ark. 32, 522 S.W.2d 421 (1975) wherein Dean was convicted for falsely pretending that he would buy cattle with $2,500 he borrowed from the complaining witness. In Dean we held that any misrepresentation or assurance in relation to a future transaction may be a promise or covenant or warranty, but cannot amount to a statatory false pretense.\nThis court has many times held that a person may not be placed in jail for willful failure to pay a debt or judgment. Leonard v. State, 170 Ark. 41, 278 S.W. 654 (1926).\nI am of the opinion that Mr. Willis sold his trailer on credit to a bad risk. Therefore, the state should not come to his aid by lending its overworked criminal justice system to collect a debt.\nHollingsworth, J., joins in this dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sherry J. Alexander, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis O\u2019RIORDAN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 84-8\n665 S.W.2d 255\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 21, 1984\n[Rehearing denied March 26, 1984.]\nSherry J. Alexander, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.\nPurtle, J., would grant rehearing."
  },
  "file_name": "0424-01",
  "first_page_order": 456,
  "last_page_order": 460
}