{
  "id": 1877741,
  "name": "Garry DOTY v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doty v. State",
  "decision_date": "1985-03-18",
  "docket_number": "CR 84-159",
  "first_page": "270",
  "last_page": "271",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "285 Ark. 270"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "686 S.W.2d 413"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "285 Ark. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877654
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "285 Ark. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877650
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0009-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 Ark. 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1878600
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/284/0572-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "284 Ark. 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1878690
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/284/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "681 S.W.2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1600,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.846,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06896946501514181
    },
    "sha256": "9cc66db46396f73ff7d9a29b623e701086f904173c12022f081119baba0681d9",
    "simhash": "1:432b1d06290f539b",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:39.025760+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Garry DOTY v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis appeal of a conviction under the new Omnibus DWI law is affirmed. All the arguments raised have been rejected in prior or contemporaneous cases.\nThe act is not void for vagueness. Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 425, 678 S.W.2d 318 (1984) reh. den. 283 Ark. 434, 681 S.W.2d 395 (1984); Long v. State, 284 Ark. 21, 680 S.W.2d 686 (1984); Steele v. State, 284 Ark. 340, 681 S.W.2d 354 (1984). Doty\u2019s argument that the act violates his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was rejected in Southern v. State, 284 Ark. 572, 683 S.W.2d 933 (1985), and Wells v. State, 285 Ark. 9, 684 S.W.2d 248 (1985). The act does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof, Lovell v. State, supra, or violate the separation of powers doctrine. Lovell v. State, supra; Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 434, 681 S.W.2d 395 (supplemental opinion on rehearing) (1983); Sparrow v. State, 284 Ark. 396, 683 S.W.2d 218 (1985); Southern v. State, supra; Tausch v. State, 285 Ark. 226, 685 S.W.2d 802 (1985).\nDoty\u2019s argument that the intoximeter test violates his right against self-incrimination has been considered and rejected. Steele v. State, supra. He argues that convictions under the former driving under the influence law should not be used to enhance a sentence under the new act. That argument was rejected in Lovell v. State, supra.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McDaniel, Gott & Wells, P.A., by: Bobby McDaniel, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Michael E. Wheeler, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Garry DOTY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 84-159\n686 S.W.2d 413\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 18, 1985\nMcDaniel, Gott & Wells, P.A., by: Bobby McDaniel, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Michael E. Wheeler, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0270-01",
  "first_page_order": 296,
  "last_page_order": 297
}