{
  "id": 1878616,
  "name": "Dennis Eugene WILLIFORD v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williford v. State",
  "decision_date": "1985-01-28",
  "docket_number": "CR 84-204",
  "first_page": "449",
  "last_page": "452",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "284 Ark. 449"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "683 S.W.2d 228"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "284 Ark. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1878686
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/284/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "678 S.W.2d 318",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1879959
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 Ark. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 369,
    "char_count": 4636,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.832,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.816716826111444e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9317077945470952
    },
    "sha256": "27cea6487708309ab6c01b757b4a0a35562718acda14e94ff22608c31818f46d",
    "simhash": "1:20a00a3ff264623b",
    "word_count": 787
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:32.164820+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dennis Eugene WILLIFORD v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nIn a non-jury trial Williford was convicted of DWI, fourth offense, and sentenced to a year\u2019s imprisonment, a $1,000 fine, and revocation of his driver\u2019s license for three years. His appeal, presenting six arguments for reversal, comes to this court under Rule 29 (1) (c). We affirm the judgment.\nTwo of the arguments, that the Omnibus DWI Act relieves the State of its burden of proof and is void for vagueness, were answered in Lovell v. State, 285 Ark. 425, 678 S.W.2d 318 (1984). A third, that the statute violates the separation of governmental powers, was answered in Sparrow v. State, 284 Ark. 396, 683 S.W.2d 218 (1985).\nFourth, the arresting officer took Williford to the police station and administered a breathalyzer test, which showed a blood alcohol content of .20%. The statute provides that the person tested may request an additional test at his own cost. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-1045(a)(3) (Supp. 1983). It further provides that a law enforcement officer\u2019s refusal to assist the person in obtaining an additional test precludes proof of the test taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer. \u00a7 1045(c)(3).\nIt is argued that the officer must assist the person to the fullest possible extent in tapping his financial resources, including transportation necessary for him to raise cash and transportation to the test site. We do not read the statute as penalizing anything other than an officer\u2019s refusal to provide assistance that is reasonable at the time and place. This incident occurred at about 2:00 a.m. Williford signed a form informing him with regard to the officer\u2019s test: \u201cIf you disagree with the results of this test, you can request a test of a different type. I will assist you in obtaining another test of your choice given by a doctor or other qualified person. You must be willing to pay for the cost of any such additional test. \u201d At the bottom of the form Williford signed a statement requesting an additional test and agreeing to pay for it.\nThe arresting officer testified he told Williford that he would take Williford to the hospital for a test, for which the hospital required $50.31; but Williford had only $2.15. The officer also offered to allow Williford to use the telephone. There is no indication that Williford requested anything else. He did not testify at the trial. In view of the officer\u2019s testimony the trial judge was right in denying the defense motion to exclude proof of the test result.\nFifth, it is argued that the State failed to show that the breathalyzer test met the statutory condition for being considered valid if performed according to methods approved by the State Board of Health. The defect complained of is the officer\u2019s failure to observe Williford for 20 minutes before the test. Reliance is placed upon a Department of Health check list containing this instruction: \u201cObserve subject for minimum of 20 minutes \u2014 no oral intake of anything.\u201d\nThe arresting officer testified that for a period of 26 minutes he observed Williford at the scene of the arrest, in the patrol car\u2019s rear view mirror as Williford sat on the passenger side of the back seat while he was being taken to the police station, and at the station itself. He said that he would have been aware of Williford\u2019s having put anything in his mouth. The officer himself operated the testing device. We do not read the Health Department instruction as requiring that the officer stare fixedly at the arrested person for 20 minutes. The offficer\u2019s testimony made a prima facie showing of compliance with the regulation. There is no contradicting testimony. The result of the test was properly received in evidence.\nSixth, it is argued that the proof of one of Williford\u2019s three prior convictions for DWI does not show that he waived the right to counsel. The record consists of a photocopy of a municipal court docket sheet, which recites that Williford \u201cwaived right to atty.\u201d It is insisted that the judge\u2019s purported signature is not legible. Many persons\u2019 signatures are not legible, but that alone does not invalidate them. Here the clerk of the court certified that the photocopy of the docket sheet was an accurate record of the proceedings. No effort was made to show that the judge did not actually sign the docket sheet. The contention is without merit.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles E. Hanks and Kenford O. Carter, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jack Gillean, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dennis Eugene WILLIFORD v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 84-204\n683 S.W.2d 228\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 28, 1985\n[Rehearing denied February 25, 1985.]\nCharles E. Hanks and Kenford O. Carter, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jack Gillean, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0449-01",
  "first_page_order": 479,
  "last_page_order": 482
}