{
  "id": 1878606,
  "name": "William Bruce TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. State",
  "decision_date": "1984-11-19",
  "docket_number": "CR 84-145",
  "first_page": "103",
  "last_page": "104",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "284 Ark. 103"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "679 S.W.2d 797"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "240 Ark. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1727662
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/240/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ark. L. Rev. 543",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "Ark. L. Rev.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 Ark. 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1675819
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/262/0087-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 2375,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.846,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8435995948832916e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7225010029542263
    },
    "sha256": "ae4834d771ce6f3a9924dbce44444ff17d9084fb3279370c2ed7606b4c413e22",
    "simhash": "1:ad886497ee0cd941",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:32.164820+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Bruce TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, unauthorized use of a vehicle, terroristic threatening, and attempted second-degree murder and was sentenced to a $1,000 fine and to consecutive prison terms totaling eight years. His only argument for reversal is that the trial judge was wrong in granting the State\u2019s request that the voir dire examination of the jury be conducted in chambers, with the public (including the defendant\u2019s father) being excluded. Our jurisdiction is under Rule 29 (1) (a).\nIn principle the case is governed by our holding in Commercial Printing Co. v. Lee, Judge, 262 Ark. 87, 553 S.W.2d 270 (1977), noted in 31 Ark. L. Rev. 543. There the defendant himself made the request that the voir dire be private. The news media, however, alertly and properly objected to their exclusion and brought the matter to this court for a declaratory decision. We concluded that the voir dire is an essential step in the trial and relied upon an early statute stating that \u201c[t]he sittings of every court shall be public.\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-109 (Repl. 1962). Chief Justice Harris\u2019s summation left no doubt about the court\u2019s position:\nAs stated previously, we have only one question before us, viz., was the court\u2019s order excluding the public and press from the voir dire valid? It is clear by what has been said that we have answered with an emphatic \u201cNo!\u201d\nThe State, in seeking to defend the action of the court below, suggests that although the public and the press may be entitled to insist that criminal trials be open to everyone, the accused himself is not entitled to assert such a First Amendment right. The quick answer is that both the federal and state constitutions guarantee that \u201cthe accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.\u201d U.S. Const., Sixth Amendment; Ark. Const., Art. 2 \u00a7 10 (1874). The accused is obviously entitled to assert a constitutional right that is unmistakably for his protection. Prejudice resulting from the exclusion need not be shown. Sirratt v. State, 240 Ark. 47, 398 S.W.2d 63 (1966).\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John F. Gibson, Jr., and Gary M. Draper, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Bruce TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 84-145\n679 S.W.2d 797\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 19, 1984\nJohn F. Gibson, Jr., and Gary M. Draper, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0103-01",
  "first_page_order": 131,
  "last_page_order": 132
}