{
  "id": 1889947,
  "name": "Gary Frank BONDS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bonds v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-05-15",
  "docket_number": "CR 89-73",
  "first_page": "630",
  "last_page": "632",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "298 Ark. 630"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "770 S.W.2d 136"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 18",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6168882
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "670 S.W.2d 434",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 Ark. 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1740879
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/282/0563-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "471 U.S. 606",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6206587
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/471/0606-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2320,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.853,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.369130595172464e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5146170684082354
    },
    "sha256": "a26518a24198595b98e3947738424dd37b3a71b49e392283cc92c1d6909217b3",
    "simhash": "1:e273175c899b1aea",
    "word_count": 385
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:53.094543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gary Frank BONDS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nThe appellant, Gary Frank Bonds, pleaded guilty to theft and burglary and was placed on five years probation. A petition was filed seeking revocation of his probation, alleging failure to report to the probation officer, failure to pay fines, costs, or fees, and failure to notify authorities of address and employment change. Bonds filed a \u201cmotion for discovery\u201d seeking information such as the names of the witnesses and documentary evidence against him. The state did not respond, and at the beginning of the revocation hearing Bonds renewed his motion for discovery. The prosecutor argued there was no need for further notice to Bonds of the allegations with which he was faced. The judge denied Bonds\u2019s motion as well as his motion for a preliminary hearing. We find no prejudicial error, as Bonds testified at the revocation hearing and admitted his failure to comply with the conditions of his probation.\nWe agree that due process of law entitled Bonds to disclosure of the evidence against him. See Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (1985). However, given Bonds\u2019s testimony admitting the violations with which he was charged, we find he suffered no prejudice.\nLisa Ray, the probation officer, testified that Bonds committed all the violations alleged. Bonds testified he had a conversation with Ms. Ray in which she had advised him of his obligations. He testified he later changed addresses without telling her, did not report, and relied on his wife to make the payments on his fine and costs, knowing that these were his responsibilities and not those of his wife or mother.\nWe do not reverse where an alleged error is not prejudicial. Berna v. State, 282 Ark. 563, 670 S.W.2d 434 (1984). Bonds has not demonstrated he could in any way have benefitted from the information of which he sought disclosure. We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, given Bond\u2019s testimony admitting the probation violations, there was no prejudice to his case. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gibson & Deen, by: Thomas D. Deen, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kay J. Jackson Demailly, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gary Frank BONDS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 89-73\n770 S.W.2d 136\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 15, 1989\n[Rehearing denied June 5, 1989.]\nGibson & Deen, by: Thomas D. Deen, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kay J. Jackson Demailly, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0630-01",
  "first_page_order": 666,
  "last_page_order": 668
}