{
  "id": 1880861,
  "name": "Hugh WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. State",
  "decision_date": "1990-12-21",
  "docket_number": "CR 90-195",
  "first_page": "218",
  "last_page": "221",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "304 Ark. 218"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "800 S.W.2d 713"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1889897
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 440",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873670
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0440-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 Ark. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1884334
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/302/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 Ark. 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877658
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678903
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 Ark. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1885508
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/301/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879969
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 Ark. 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1882725
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/303/0202-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 394,
    "char_count": 6004,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.861,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5547867136513958e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6758218336281382
    },
    "sha256": "8a830cf01e5fefc30c145821aae42f60bc262bb2b32c0abeb3b7448cf8b7b142",
    "simhash": "1:06b290ef8180dbbf",
    "word_count": 1024
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:14.712931+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hugh WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThe appellant, Hugh Williams, was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and second degree escape. He was sentenced to forty years and five years imprisonment, respectively, and a fine of $10,000.\nOn appeal, Williams contends that 1) the trial court erred in refusing to grant a motion for mistrial after he was brought before the prospective jury in shackles, and 2) the trial court erred and abused its discretion in allowing the state to use a prior felony conviction to impeach his credibility. We find no merit in either argument and affirm.\nOn the morning of trial, and prior to selection of the jury, Williams was brought into the courtroom in restraints. The trial judge was informed of the fact and immediately ordered them removed.\nThe trial proceeded and after nearly all of the state\u2019s witnesses had testified, Williams\u2019 attorney moved for a mistrial, contending that it was prejudicial for Williams to have been seen by the jurors wearing restraints. The court denied the motion as untimely and because there was no proof that any of the thirteen jurors actually selected had seen Williams \u201cshackled.\u201d\nThe trial court\u2019s ruling was correct. The motion was not made until well into the trial, nearing the close of the state\u2019s case. It is well established that in order to preserve an argument for appeal, the appellant must make an objection at the first opportunity. A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.21; Asher v. State, 303 Ark. 202, 795 S.W.2d 350 (1990); Young v. State, 283 Ark. 435, 678 S.W.2d 329 (1984).\nNotwithstanding his failure to make a timely motion for mistrial, Williams has not demonstrated prejudice. See Hart v. State, 301 Ark. 200, 783 S.W.2d 40 (1990). We have held that it is not prejudicial, per se, when a defendant is brought into court handcuffed and that the defendant must affirmatively demonstrate prejudice. See Johnson v. State, 261 Ark. 183, 546 S.W.2d 719 (1977); Hill v. State, 285 Ark. 77, 685 S.W.2d 495 (1985). Williams has offered no proof that any of the jury members actually saw him in restraints and, in fact, in his motion for mistrial, Williams\u2019 attorney stated, \u201cI do not know if any of the jurors saw [Williams] ... If he was observed by jurors, I would move for a mistrial.\u201d\nThis case is similar to Hill v. State, supra, where, in upholding the trial court\u2019s denial of a mistrial, we stated:\nIn this case, from the record of the in-chambers conference on the mistrial motion, it is not evident there was anything but a brief, inadvertent sighting by some of the jurors. The appellant offered no proof of any jurors having actually seen the appellant, nor was any voir dire requested to substantiate any allegation of prejudice. There was no affirmative showing of prejudice by the appellant.\nFurthermore, as in Johnson v. State, supra, Williams was charged with escape (in this case from the county jail as opposed to the state penitentiary in Johnson) and was an inmate at the state prison at the time of trial. All of these facts were revealed to the jury during the course of trial and, thus, any prejudice which may have resulted from Williams having been seen in restraints would be rendered harmless.\nA motion for a mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy which will be resorted to only when there has been an error so prejudicial that justice cannot be served by continuing the trial. Richmond v. State, 302 Ark. 498, 791 S.W.2d 691 (1990). Given the facts before us, we cannot say the court\u2019s denial of a mistrial was in error.\nWe also find no error in the trial court\u2019s ruling that the state would be permitted to impeach Williams with a prior felony conviction.\nAfter moving for a mistrial, Williams\u2019 counsel informed the court that he \u201cbelieve [d] [they were] gonna have Mr. Williams testify\u201d and asked the court \u201cnot to allow Mr. Foster (the prosecutor) to impeach him with that prior felony due to the prejudicial effect that it would have on Mr. Williams.\u201d Noting that Williams\u2019 counsel stated in opening argument \u201cyou are probably going to hear evidence today that a year or so back Mr. Williams had a conviction for breaking into a car,\u201d the court responded that defense counsel had \u201copened the door to it\u201d and that \u201cif the state does introduce [prior convictions], I\u2019m going to allow it.\u201d\nLater, Williams testified on direct examination that he had \u201ctrouble before on a breaking or entering and theft by receiving\u201d and that he \u201cbroke into a car.\u201d In addition, he testified on cross-examination that he had a previous conviction for breaking and entering and theft of property.\nRule 609(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence provides as follows:\nFor the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one (1) year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party or a witness, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.\nInasmuch as Williams\u2019 counsel alluded to his prior convictions in his opening statement and the appellant testified to his various criminal involvements during direct examination, it would be a vain and useless act for the trial court to weigh the probative value of admitting this evidence on cross-examination under Rule 609(a).\nFurthermore, where a defendant, himself, initiates discussion of a certain subject, he opens the door to a line of questioning by the state. See generally Stephens v. State, 290 Ark. 440, 720 S.W.2d 301 (1986); Thompson v. State, 298 Ark. 502, 769 S.W.2d 6 (1989).\nOn the basis of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Clark & Adkisson, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly K. Hill, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hugh WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 90-195\n800 S.W.2d 713\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 21, 1990\nClark & Adkisson, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly K. Hill, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0218-01",
  "first_page_order": 252,
  "last_page_order": 255
}