{ "id": 1891455, "name": "Jerry WHITLOCK v. Brad SMITH", "name_abbreviation": "Whitlock v. Smith", "decision_date": "1989-01-09", "docket_number": "88-194", "first_page": "399", "last_page": "402", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "297 Ark. 399" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "762 S.W.2d 782" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "289 Ark. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875375 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/289/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 Ark. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1174851 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/272/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 Ark. 1060", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726233 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/255/1060-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 Ark. 688", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1700259 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/230/0688-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 Ark. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1636897 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/250/0199-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 319, "char_count": 3717, "ocr_confidence": 0.906, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.376888042663876e-08, "percentile": 0.4818811830342232 }, "sha256": "74da75a10bb248ee04822a400b4f4de3262a884580829cab1099ed5a3ec45ef7", "simhash": "1:dbfaebe32494c418", "word_count": 631 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:39.933112+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Jerry WHITLOCK v. Brad SMITH" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThis is a simple battery case. The parties were both truck drivers for Arkansas Best Freight, and during a layover in Dallas, Texas, they had an altercation in a bar. Actually, only one blow was struck; Whitlock hit Smith in the face with his fist. The blow fractured Smith\u2019s cheekbone, requiring two surgeries. Smith lost twelve or thirteen weeks of work as a result of the injuries and resulting complications.\nWhitlock did not deny striking Smith, but he contended that the blow was struck in self-defense. Another truck driver, Larry Bradbury, was an eyewitness, and his version of the events in Dallas could have been taken by the jury to support Smith\u2019s account, that the blow was unprovoked. The jury believed Smith\u2019s version and awarded him $24,414.00.\nThe appeal presents three legal questions. We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed.\nFirst, the appellant\u2019s lawyer, an experienced trial advocate, questioned the judge\u2019s interruption of his examination of the eyewitness Bradbury. It is argued that the trial judge commented on the evidence, violating Ark. Const, art. 7, \u00a7 23 (1874).\nDuring a critical part of Bradbury\u2019s testimony involving Smith\u2019s actions when Whitlock had left his seat to approach Smith, the following exchange took place before the jury:\n[Defense counsel]\nQ. Was he [Smith] straddling the chair?\nA. Yes.\nQ. He stood from the straddle position?\nA. Yes, sir.\nThe Court: I gather you didn\u2019t know if he was headed for the door or not?\nA. I didn\u2019t know what was going on.\nThe Court: This man [Whitlock] asked him to leave?\nA. Yes, sir.\nThe Court: You didn\u2019t know if he was leaving or not?\nA. No. sir. But at that point by him asking that and standing \u2014\nAt that point Whitlock\u2019s lawyer asked for a mistrial. While the judge perhaps should have let the lawyer finish his examination and try his case, we cannot say the questions asked amount to a comment on the evidence in violation of the constitution; nor can we say the conduct of the judge clearly prejudiced the jury. The trial court has some discretion in examining witnesses to clarify their testimony, and when no prejudice appears, there is no abuse of that discretion. Miller v. State, 250 Ark. 199, 464 S.W.2d 594 (1971); Clubb v. State, 230 Ark. 688, 326 S.W.2d 816 (1959). The judge made no further remarks or asked any other questions and Bradbury testified at length as to what he saw.\nThe second question concerns an instruction. The suit was for battery, but the appellee amended his complaint before trial to allege negligence. The trial judge instructed the jury on battery and refused to give an instruction offered by the appellant on comparative fault. It is argued that this was error. It is the duty of the judge to review the evidence presented, decide what the applicable law is, and instruct the jury. Life and Casualty Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Gilkey, 255 Ark. 1060, 505 S.W.2d 200 (1974). This was a battery case, pure and simple, not a negligence case, and the judge correctly refused to give the instruction on comparative fault.\nFinally, it is argued that the jury rendered a verdict by lot, which would be error. Scheptmann v. Thorn, 272 Ark. 70, 612 S.W.2d 291 (1981). The appellant contends that the verdict form had twelve numerical figures on it. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 9(d) prevents us from reviewing this argument because the form was not abstracted. See Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 711 S.W.2d 477 (1986).\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Boswell, Tucker & Brewster, by: Ted Boswell, for appellant.", "Wallace, Dover & Dixon, by: Mark F. Hampton and Steve Morley, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Jerry WHITLOCK v. Brad SMITH\n88-194\n762 S.W.2d 782\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 9, 1989\nBoswell, Tucker & Brewster, by: Ted Boswell, for appellant.\nWallace, Dover & Dixon, by: Mark F. Hampton and Steve Morley, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0399-01", "first_page_order": 435, "last_page_order": 438 }