{
  "id": 1877681,
  "name": "Gerald WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1985-03-18",
  "docket_number": "CR 85-3",
  "first_page": "257",
  "last_page": "258",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "285 Ark. 257"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "685 S.W.2d 811"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "685 S.W.2d 500",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1877730
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 Ark. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 1925,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.846,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9235953302597478e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7333275028775809
    },
    "sha256": "0d0deed96e058315cc5d103f120192e9f21371e7453dd74f2716b9b40d040683",
    "simhash": "1:91baa04fea31820a",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:39.025760+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gerald WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nThis appeal comes before us under Rule 29( 1 )(c) as one in a series of cases in which we construe and interpret the Omnibus DWI Act of 1983, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-2501 \u2014 75-2514 (Supp. 1983). We affirm the judgment finding the appellant guilty.\nAppellant first argues that he should not have been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated because the state failed to introduce evidence of a chemical test to prove intoxication. The argument is without merit. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-2503 (a) (Supp. 1983) provides that it is illegal for anyone to operate a vehicle while intoxicated. Subsection (b) of the same statute provides that it is illegal for anyone to operate a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .10% or more. Proof-of the blood alcohol content is not necessary for a conviction under subsection (a), driving while intoxicated. However, such proof is admissible as evidence tending to prove intoxication. Yacono v. State, 285 Ark. 150, 685 S.W.2d 500 (1985).\nThe appellant next argues that he was charged under subsection (b) of the act but was convicted under subsection (a) of the act, and therefore, his conviction must be reversed. Again, the argument is without merit. The charging instrument, whether a citation or information, is not in the record. The municipal court appeal transcript reflects that appellant was \u201ccharged with the offense of DWI one. \u2019 \u2019 Other parts of the record indicate that he was charged with \u201cDWI one.\u201d Such a charge is sufficient for a conviction under either subsection (a) or (b), even though the evidentiary requirements of the subsections are different. Yacono v. State, supra.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry & Mooney, by: John R. Henry, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sandra Partridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gerald WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 85-3\n685 S.W.2d 811\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 18, 1985\nHenry & Mooney, by: John R. Henry, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sandra Partridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0257-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 284
}