{
  "id": 1888338,
  "name": "Judy HOLBIRD v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holbird v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-09-11",
  "docket_number": "CR 89-53",
  "first_page": "551",
  "last_page": "552",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "299 Ark. 551"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "775 S.W.2d 893"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "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": "299 Ark. 245",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888397
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/299/0245-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892733
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0167-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 198,
    "char_count": 2169,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.875,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0313961624691828e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5481919988385423
    },
    "sha256": "c7c10a5e8aafdd7dfc89d38acce790d69e0b48978ff34030704a1e56760447d1",
    "simhash": "1:7b2a2a624c28eaba",
    "word_count": 366
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:40.326030+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Judy HOLBIRD v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nJudy Holbird was convicted of the aggravated robbery of the Mug n Jug in Fort Smith on March 14, 1988. The appellant was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The manager and another employee identified the appellant as the robber. The manager described how the robbery occurred, how the appellant was dressed and the gun she used. His testimony was corroborated by the appellant\u2019s confession. However, at trial she argued that she confessed because she thought her daughter had robbed the Mug n Jug and she wanted to protect her.\nOn appeal she argues the trial judge should have granted a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct. \u201cA mistrial is an exceptional remedy to be used only where any possible prejudice cannot be removed by an admonition to the jury.\u201d McIntosh v. State, 296 Ark. 167, 753 S. W.2d 273 (1988). The question here is whether the trial judge abused his discretion. See Holbird v. State, 299 Ark. 245, 771 S.W.2d 775 (1989). We find no abuse of discretion.\nDuring closing arguments, the prosecuting attorney stated \u201ca real professional\u201d committed this robbery and that the evidence showed that the appellant was the real professional. The judge admonished the jury to base their decision only on the evidence and not statements made by the attorneys. We find no abuse of discretion.\nThe prosecutor tried to answer the question of the robber\u2019s identity \u2014 whether the mother or daughter committed the robbery \u2014 by asking the daughter, who was evidently in the audience, to stand. The prosecutor used very poor judgment, but we cannot say it should have resulted in a mistrial. The daughter had not been called as a witness. The record does not show the daughter actually stood, so we cannot say the judge\u2019s denial of a mistrial was in error. Prejudice is not presumed and the appellant has demonstrated none. Berna v. State, 282 Ark. 563, 670 S.W.2d 434 (1984).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. Paul Hughes III, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Tim Humphries, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Judy HOLBIRD v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 89-53\n775 S.W.2d 893\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 11, 1989\nR. Paul Hughes III, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Tim Humphries, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0551-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 578
}