{
  "id": 1907819,
  "name": "Billy Joe BRITTON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Britton v. State",
  "decision_date": "1994-03-07",
  "docket_number": "CR 93-832",
  "first_page": "219",
  "last_page": "221",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "316 Ark. 219"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "870 S.W.2d 762"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "313 Ark. 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1914648
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/313/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879990
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0162-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 352,
    "char_count": 4948,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.849,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4279765551227057e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6503153272642537
    },
    "sha256": "d69ad287c0700c1e362628e2bea2e6c2ed19c67c8f35af7d34efdbc6d1c19fbe",
    "simhash": "1:9b5148d0d7ffd8a4",
    "word_count": 819
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:45:44.703271+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Corbin, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Billy Joe BRITTON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nOn April 7, 1993, Billy Joe Britton was convicted as a habitual for the delivery of a controlled substance. At trial, the state offered evidence that, on October 14, 1989, Officer Willie Robinson, an undercover investigator, and a confidential informant made a controlled buy from Britton of one small plastic bag of cocaine for twenty dollars. Britton was not charged with the offense until the state arrested him on August 19, 1992, and filed an information on September 11, 1992. The original and a later amended information filed on March 10, 1993, both reflected the date of the offense was October 14, 1991. The first amended information added that Britton was a habitual offender. On April 6, 1993, the day before Britton\u2019s trial, the state again amended the prior information to reflect that Brit-ton\u2019s alleged criminal offense occurred on October 14, 1989.\nFor reversal, Britton presents four points, but none of them are properly preserved on appeal. He claims that (1) the state\u2019s information as amended did not correctly charge him with delivery of cocaine or as a habitual, (2) the delay in bringing the charges prejudiced him, (3) he was improperly denied the testimony of his sole alibi witness, and (4) a prison photograph of him was improperly displayed to the jury. As pointed out by the state, the trial court\u2019s rulings on each of these objections are fatally absent from the abstract of record. Lenell v. State, 283 Ark. 162, 671 S.W.2d 741 (1984). Our rule is clear that, without proper abstracting, seven justices would be constrained to pore through the sole record of the case on file with the clerk of the supreme court in search of the error(s) propounded by the defense. We have said repeatedly, and our rule so states, that we will not go to the record in search of prejudicial error. Haynes v. State, 313 Ark. 407, 855 S.W.2d 313 (1993).\nBesides not having the trial court\u2019s rulings before us, we must also mention the extreme difficulty we have in understanding or reaching the errors assigned in this appeal because of the abbreviated or limited abstract provided the court. Britton\u2019s abstract consists of nine pages and omits pertinent pleadings and testimony set out in a transcript which contains 286 pages. Such omissions prevent us from having a full and fair understanding of the arguments made by the parties in this appeal. For example, much of.Britton\u2019s argument for seeking reversal involves his contention that he was misled to believe up until the trial date that he was defending against an offense which purportedly occurred on October 14, 1991 \u2014 a date which provided him a perfect alibi because he was then in the penitentiary serving a sentence for yet another criminal offense. He claims the state\u2019s amending its information a day before trial caused him to defend against a different crime, namely, one occurring on October 14, 1989, not October 14, 1991 as originally charged.\nImportant documents contained in the transcript are omitted from Britton\u2019s abstract and support the state\u2019s position that the October 14, 1991 date in the original and first amended information was a typographical error and should have read 1989. In fact, those documents and pleadings reflect Britton was well aware that the state\u2019s case from its inception centered on Brit-ton\u2019s having committed the alleged offense on October 14, 1989. The state\u2019s affidavit and arrest warrant and attached police report reflect the offense occurred on October 14, 1989, as did the state\u2019s criminal laboratory report. Even Britton\u2019s pro se motions referred to October 14, 1989 as being the date of the offense. The state\u2019s documents .were filed and available as early as September 11, 1992, the date of filing of the original information.\nOther pertinent matters, including exhibits (prosecutor\u2019s letters to Britton\u2019s counsel), state responses, and colloquy between the court and counsel, are absent from the abstract that would be relevant to this appeal, but we need not belabor our point further. Suffice it to say, the abstract of record before this court is seriously insufficient and fails to provide a record which would allow us a full and fair understanding of the issues presented or to permit a decision in this case. Therefore, we affirm.\nCorbin, J., not participating.\nWe note that one justice\u2019s review of the sole transcript of the proceedings below sets forth concise reasons given by the trial court for ruling as it did on each objection that Britton made below and now argues on appeal. Britton, however, fails to abstract these rulings or mention them in his argument.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kearney Law Offices, by: John L. Kearney, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sherry L. Daves, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Billy Joe BRITTON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 93-832\n870 S.W.2d 762\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 7, 1994\n[Rehearing denied April 18, 1994.]\nKearney Law Offices, by: John L. Kearney, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sherry L. Daves, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee.\nCorbin, J., not participating."
  },
  "file_name": "0219-01",
  "first_page_order": 251,
  "last_page_order": 253
}