{
  "id": 1914667,
  "name": "Robert HIGGS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Higgs v. State",
  "decision_date": "1993-05-24",
  "docket_number": "CR 93-54",
  "first_page": "272",
  "last_page": "274",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "313 Ark. 272"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "854 S.W.2d 328"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 315",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1665063
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/265/0315-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 Ark. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1884313
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/302/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ark. App. 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6141760
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/15/0261-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-101",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(f)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-401",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ark. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1906094
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/309/0503-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2564,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.918,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37726601048941466
    },
    "sha256": "614b34a05266a2c82e0be32b62ab601703f03c803ec5a85f6eff323397a24dee",
    "simhash": "1:120fc9106e5dba40",
    "word_count": 445
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:14:05.799320+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert HIGGS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nAppellant was found guilty of delivery of a controlled substance. He appeals and argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a directed verdict. There is no merit in the argument and we affirm the judgment of conviction.\nWe affirm the denial of a motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case if there was substantial evidence to support the conviction. Brown v. State, 309 Ark. 503, 832 S.W.2d 477 (1992). In determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the verdict, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee. Id. In so viewing the evidence in this case, the facts are that the police gave Jennifer Keener money to buy drugs from the appellant. She subsequently asked appellant to buy a rock of cocaine for her. He got into the front right seat of her car. She drove to a crack house, stopped the car, and handed appellant $30.00, which he handed to a person standing just outside his side of the car. The third person went into the crack house, came out, approached the car from appellant\u2019s side, and handed appellant the cocaine, which he handed to Keener. The event was monitored by the police.\nAppellant argues that since the third person ultimately took the money appellant cannot be guilty of \u201cdelivery\u201d of a controlled substance. The argument is without merit as one does not have to receive money to be guilty of delivery of a controlled substance. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-401 makes it illegal to deliver a controlled substance. \u201cDelivery\u201d is defined as \u201cthe actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one (1) person to another of a controlled substance or counterfeit substance in exchange for money or anything of value.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-101(f) (1987). The statute prohibits the \u201cdelivery\u201d of a controlled substance, not its sale. The statute does not require that the perpetrator ultimately receive money, only that he participate in the transfer of the substance in exchange for money or anything of value. See Webber v. State, 15 Ark. App. 261, 692 S.W.2d 255(1985). The fact that an accused is only the agent of a buyer or seller of drugs does not remove the transfer from the ambit of the statute. Parker v. State, 302 Ark. 509, 790 S.W.2d 894 (1990); Parker v. State, 265 Ark. 315, 578 S.W.2d 206 (1979).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joe Kelly Hardin, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert HIGGS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 93-54\n854 S.W.2d 328\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 24, 1993\nJoe Kelly Hardin, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0272-01",
  "first_page_order": 306,
  "last_page_order": 308
}