{
  "id": 1875333,
  "name": "Robert JENNINGS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jennings v. State",
  "decision_date": "1986-05-12",
  "docket_number": "CR 85-229",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "289 Ark. 39"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "709 S.W.2d 69"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2255,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.899,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.310772795959589e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5129957383615802
    },
    "sha256": "497427c0fd53e26cfb1f4c364725f4186b4527a6e126d277c4a3140c5cf18fc8",
    "simhash": "1:4ada98ff3f486af8",
    "word_count": 371
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:34.211418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Robert JENNINGS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nRobert Jennings was convicted of raping his ten year old stepdaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal he makes one argument: the physician who examined the victim was improperly allowed to testify to her opinion on the ultimate issue, that issue being Jennings\u2019 guilt. That was not the opinion expressed nor was this precise objection made to the trial court. We affirm.\nDr. Yoland Condrey testified that her examination of the victim revealed an old, well-healed scar around the hymen, distension of the vaginal opening, and a small amount of white discharge. She said the victim\u2019s history and examination were consistent with penetration by an adult penis on more than one occasion. An objection was made to the doctor\u2019s basing this conclusion on medical history. No mention was made of \u201cultimate issue.\u201d The doctor later said a history of sexual abuse or penetration or attempted penetration was important in connection with such an examination. She concluded by giving her opinion that penetration occurred by an adult penis.\nThe defense, in part, was that the victim\u2019s 14 year old half-brother had had sexual intercourse with the victim. The argument on appeal is that Dr. Condrey\u2019s opinion that the victim was abused by an adult was an opinion on the ultimate issue since that opinion would negate the half-brother\u2019s involvement.\nThe opinion given was not the ultimate issue to be decided, that being whether Jennings was guilty. Unif. R. Evid., Rule 704 provides:\nOpinion on ultimate issue. . . Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.\nNo argument is made on appeal that an expert could not form such an opinion on the basis expressed by Dr. Condrey. Moreover, the doctor testified that her findings might be consistent with intercourse with a 14 year old, depending on the maturity of the male.\nAffirmed.\nPurtle, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry & Moore, by: John R. Henry, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jerome T. Kearney, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert JENNINGS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 85-229\n709 S.W.2d 69\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 12, 1986\nHenry & Moore, by: John R. Henry, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jerome T. Kearney, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 67
}