{ "id": 1893815, "name": "Leslie ANDERSON v. SHARP COUNTY, ARKANSAS", "name_abbreviation": "Anderson v. Sharp County", "decision_date": "1988-05-09", "docket_number": "87-342", "first_page": "366", "last_page": "370", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "295 Ark. 366" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "749 S.W.2d 306" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "227 Ark. 786", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1705701 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/227/0786-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 Ark. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717905 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/226/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-5-101", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1102", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(7)" }, { "page": "(b)(7)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 Ark. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1746963 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/279/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 Ark. 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1878645 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/284/0016-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 439, "char_count": 7184, "ocr_confidence": 0.929, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08, "percentile": 0.29406675833224255 }, "sha256": "91ff76eb848036ae695061aae61919ce76b8b42e8ef40d71a519a3a7653788b8", "simhash": "1:dffcc7344c8a8691", "word_count": 1210 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:27.354550+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Glaze, J., concurs." ], "parties": [ "Leslie ANDERSON v. SHARP COUNTY, ARKANSAS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThe appellee, Sharp County, Arkansas, brought this cause of action in replevin to obtain title to items of jewelry which the appellant, former County Judge Leslie Anderson, received as a bribe. The case was presented to the Sharp County Circuit Court on the following agreed statement of facts:\nStewart Lambert, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and Harry L. Ponder, attorneys respectively for plaintiff, Sharp County, Arkansas, and defendant, Leslie Anderson, hereby agree that the following is a statement of the facts in this cause, and that the case should be tried on said agreed statement of facts:\n1.\nDefendant, Leslie Anderson, was County Judge of Sharp County, Arkansas, duly qualified and acting, during the years 1977 and 1978.\n2.\nSometime in 1978 defendant received from one Ralph Shaddox certain jewelry as a reward for permitting Ralph Shaddox to do business with Sharp County, Arkansas . . . . [List omitted.]\n3.\nSometime in 1978 the jewelry listed above was found by Oklahoma State Trooper Choate in the trunk of a car driven by Anderson, after being impounded by the Oklahoma State Police on a traffic charge.\n4.\nOn being questioned by Oklahoma Prosecutor Frank Rayhall and Oklahoma State Trooper Jack Choate, Anderson said that he received the jewelry listed above because Sharp County did business with Ralph Shaddox. He further said that \u201ckickbacks\u201d had to be in money and he only took jewelry.\n5.\nWhen applied to public servants the terms \u201cbribe\u201d and \u201ckickback\u201d are synonymous.\n6.\nThe jewelry described above constituted a bribe given to, and accepted as such, by Anderson and resulted in Sharp County, Arkansas, having to pay more than the fair market price for goods and services and so was detrimental to Sharp County, Arkansas.\n7.\nBecause Anderson accepted the jewelry described above he was charged with Public Servant Bribery in case number CR-79-1 filed in the Circuit Court for Sharp County, Arkansas.\n8.\nThe jewelry described above was impounded as evidence in case number CR-79-1, Circuit Court for Sharp County, Arkansas.\n9.\nIn case number CR-79-1 an Order of Nolle Proseque was entered August 21,1985. Part of that Order provided that the evidence impounded should remain in the joint custody of Sharp County Judge, Frank Arnold, and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Stewart Lambert, until determination of a replevin action which Sharp County, Arkansas, was ordered to file, but if said action was not filed within ten days from August 21, 1985, the jewelry described above was to be returned to Anderson.\n10.\nThis cause, CIV-85-111, Circuit Court, Sharp County, Arkansas is the replevin action filed in compliance with the Court\u2019s Order in case CR-70-1, Circuit Court, Sharp County, Arkansas.\nThe trial court accepted the stipulated facts as evidence and ordered possession of the property be delivered to the lawful custodian of Sharp County. It found that (1) \u201cit is the intent of said statute [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1102(b)(7) (1987), formerly Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 17-3901 (B)(7) (Repl. 1980)] to require that any property received by a County Judge, while serving as County Judge, is accepted and can only be accepted in behalf of the County\u201d and that (2) \u201cthe County Judge obtaining such illegal gifts or bribes should not be allowed to retain such property as his own property.\u201d We agree with the trial court that a county judge should not be able to retain illegal gifts or bribes as his own property, however, the court was incorrect in finding under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-14-1102(b)(7) that the jewelry accepted as a bribe belonged to the county.\nSection 14-14-1102(b)(7) provides in pertinent part:\nACCEPTING GIFTS, GRANTS, AND DONATIONS FROM FEDERAL, PUBLIC, OR PRIVATE SOURCES. (A) The county judge, as the chief executive officer, is authorized to accept, in behalf of the county, gifts, grants, and donations of real or personal property for use of the county.\nThis statute does not apply to bribes received by a county judge. The property in question was not a gift, grant, or donation, but rather was contraband. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-5-101 (1987), formerly Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1401 (Repl. 1977), defines contraband to include \u201c[a]ny article possessed under circumstances prohibited by law.\u201d The jewelry found in Anderson\u2019s possession clearly meets this definition.\nAlthough the circuit court directed Sharp County to obtain the property by an action in replevin, we cannot approve this procedure as Sharp County was not the owner entitled to possession of the property. Williams v. Harrell, 226 Ark. 115, 288 S.W. 2d 321(1956).A replevin action can be maintained only by one who has a general or special property interest in a thing taken or detained at the commencement of the action. 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin \u00a7 16 (1973). \u201cSuch right of possession or ownership must be one by a title recognized at law, as distinguished from one recognized only in courts of equity.\u201d Id.\nThe trial court was correct that Anderson should not be able to retain illegal gifts or bribes. In Womack v. Maner, 227 Ark. 786, 301 S.W.2d 438 (1957), we noted that there is no statute authorizing the recovery of money alleged to have been paid as a bribe and aptly stated that \u201c [i] t is firmly established that in a situation such as is set out in the complaint the law will not aid either party to the illegal or void contract.\u201d Likewise, we will not aid a party who attempts to recover property obtained as a result of a bribe.\nWe dismiss this suit because Sharp County is not entitled to replevin. We take no position on title to the property, noting that it is still in the joint custody of the Sharp County Judge and the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney by virtue of the trial court\u2019s previous order.\nReversed and dismissed.\nGlaze, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice." }, { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice,\nconcurring. I agree with the majority but wish to make it clear that, as the majority points out, the jewelry items involved here are contraband and, in my opinion, subject to the disposition procedures set forth in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7' 5-5-101 (1987). While eventually the county\u2019s general fund may well receive the proceeds from a sale of the jewelry, I agree, too, with the majority that this case must be reversed and dismissed. In other words, the trial judge\u2019s decision cannot be sustained as a correct one even though based on an erroneous reason. See Ratliff v. Moss, 284 Ark. 16, 678 S.W.2d 369 (1984); Simmons First Nat\u2019l Bank v. Wells, 279 Ark. 204, 650 S.W.2d 236 (1983). In this case, the appellee proceeded under the wrong law as well as an erroneous legal theory. The correct procedure concerning the disposition of contraband under \u00a7 5-5-101 is entirely different from a holding, as the trial court did here, that the county should recover the jewelry for the use and benefit of the county\u2019s citizens.\nFor these reasons, and those given in the majority\u2019s opinion, I agree to reverse and dismiss.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Ponder & Jarboe, by: Harry L. Ponder, for appellant.", "Jim Stallcup, Prosecuting Att\u2019y, Stewart K. Lambert, Deputy Prosecuting Att\u2019y, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Leslie ANDERSON v. SHARP COUNTY, ARKANSAS\n87-342\n749 S.W.2d 306\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 9, 1988\nPonder & Jarboe, by: Harry L. Ponder, for appellant.\nJim Stallcup, Prosecuting Att\u2019y, Stewart K. Lambert, Deputy Prosecuting Att\u2019y, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0366-01", "first_page_order": 394, "last_page_order": 398 }