{
  "id": 1877654,
  "name": "Max A. TAUSCH v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tausch v. State",
  "decision_date": "1985-03-18",
  "docket_number": "CR 85-4",
  "first_page": "226",
  "last_page": "227",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "285 Ark. 226"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "685 S.W.2d 802"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879959
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 Ark. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1878638
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/284/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 Ark. 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1751506
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/276/0300-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "681 S.W.2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 192,
    "char_count": 2018,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.856,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0457817476930678e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5520256200264958
    },
    "sha256": "d056fac7d0d84d7de683ce3f2bda03684ea0fdbe54080bad815af763e19f441b",
    "simhash": "1:fb861c066e146f1a",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:39.025760+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Max A. TAUSCH v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis is another in a number of cases questioning the validity of the Omnibus DWI Act. Act 549 of 1983. In this case Tausch pleaded guilty in the municipal court to a first DWI offense, but he contested the charge in the circuit court. After a non-jury trial the circuit court made a finding of guilty and imposed the same punishment as that in the municipal court: Twenty-four hours in jail, a 90-day suspension of Tausch\u2019s driver\u2019s license, and a $500 fine. Among many arguments presented to the circuit court, only two are asserted on appeal.\nFirst, it is argued that the statute violates the constitutional separation of governmental powers by prohibiting trial judges from suspending the execution of the sentences mandated by the act. In a supplemental opinion on rehearing in Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 434, 681 S.W.2d 395 (1984), we held that as a matter of statutory interpretation the sentencing provisions of the Omnibus DWI Act are mandatory. The constitutional question was not then before us, but we have no hesitancy in upholding the validity of the act. In Hill v. State, 276 Ark. 300, 634 S.W.2d 120 (1982), we adhered to our many prior cases holding that the courts have no inherent authority to suspend the execution of sentences; the power to grant or withhold that authority rests with the General Assembly. Those cases are controlling here.\nThe appellant\u2019s second argument, that under the act the blood-alcohol level creates a conclusive presumption of guilt and compels a person to incriminate himself, has been rejected in earlier cases construing the Omnibus DWI Act. Steele v. State, 284 Ark. 340, 681 S.W.2d 354 (1984); Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 425, 678 S.W.2d 318 (1984).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tucker & Thrailkill, by: Patricia A. Tucker and Danny Thrailkill, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Joyce Rayburn Greene, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Max A. TAUSCH v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 85-4\n685 S.W.2d 802\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 18, 1985\nTucker & Thrailkill, by: Patricia A. Tucker and Danny Thrailkill, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Joyce Rayburn Greene, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0226-01",
  "first_page_order": 252,
  "last_page_order": 253
}