{
  "id": 1451329,
  "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. Rebecca BICKERSTAFF",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bickerstaff",
  "decision_date": "1995-05-30",
  "docket_number": "CR 94-1141",
  "first_page": "641",
  "last_page": "643",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "320 Ark. 641"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "899 S.W.2d 68"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "225 Ark. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1642440
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/225/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 15-42-101",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-1-108",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892766
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 Ark. 121",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1935027
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/312/0121-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ark. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898944
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 Ark. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1453640
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/319/0356-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4311,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.757263447813787e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8332626728430885
    },
    "sha256": "9188d429cf214e8853a957325f14bd0dd68318034456eabf283c7483bda3efb9",
    "simhash": "1:8551997541fc0097",
    "word_count": 735
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:37.743482+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Roaf, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of Arkansas v. Rebecca BICKERSTAFF"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert L. Brown, Justice.\nOn May 30, 1993, the appellee, Rebecca Bickerstaff, was cited by Arkansas Game and Fish Wildlife Officer James Hartness for fishing without a license, an offense prohibited under Game and Fish Commission Regulation 3.02. She entered a plea of not guilty in the Municipal Court for the City of Sheridan, but following trial, the judge found her guilty and fined her $50 and assessed costs of $72.25. She appealed to Grant County Circuit Court, but before trial, she moved to have the citation against her dismissed because Officer Hartness had not been elected by the Game and Fish Commission in direct contravention of Amendment 35 of the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court agreed that a vote by the Commission as a body was required for the employment of Officer Hartness and that that had not transpired. The court held that the employment of personnel such as Officer Hartness was not delegable by the Commission, and it dismissed the charges on appeal as violative of the Arkansas Constitution.\nThe State of Arkansas now appeals the dismissal under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.10. We dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\nNeither party raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, but we are obliged to do so on our own. State v. Gray, 319 Ark. 356, 891 S.W.2d 376 (1995); State v. Edwards, 310 Ark. 516, 838 S.W.2d 356 (1992). The precise question before us is whether the State has the authority to appeal from a dismissal of the offense involved, which is a violation of Game and Fish Commission Regulation 3.02. We have made it clear in the past that appeals by the State are authorized in only the narrowest of instances. State v. Mazur, 312 Ark. 121, 847 S.W.2d 715 (1993); State v. Hurst, 296 Ark. 132, 752 S.W.2d 749 (1988). The reason is simple. The State has considerable resources to appeal a dismissal or acquittal, which places the defendant at a pronounced disadvantage.\nA threshold question in an appeal by the State is whether the requirement under Rule 36.10(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure has been met. Rule 36.10(b) reads:\n(b) Where an appeal, other than an interlocutory appeal, is desired on behalf of the state following either a misdemeanor or felony prosecution, the prosecuting attorney shall file a notice of appeal within thirty (30) days after entry of a final order by the trial judge.\nClearly, the rule refers to an appeal by the State following either a misdemeanor or felony prosecution. Just as clearly, neither is involved in the case before us. What is involved is a violation of Game and Fish Regulation 3.02 for fishing without a license. A violation of that regulation carries with it, in the way of a penalty, a fine of between $50 and $1,000.\nUnder state law, a \u201cviolation\u201d is a separate category of offense from a misdemeanor and a felony and is defined as an offense that carries with it a fine or forfeiture or civil penalty. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-1-108 (Repl. 1993). In the instant case, we are concerned not with a statutory violation but with one established by agency regulation. In any event, a violation is not a misdemeanor or a felony, and those are the only two categories of prosecution which can generate an appeal by the State.\nBecause there is no basis for the State to prosecute this appeal under Rule 36.10, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. State v. Mazur, supra; State v. Edwards, supra.\nAppeal dismissed.\nRoaf, J., not participating.\nWe are aware that there is a state statute which provides that fishing without a fishing license is a \u201cmisdemeanor.\u201d See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 15-42-101 (Repl. 1994). Appellee Bickerstaff was not charged under this statute, however, but under Game and Fish Regulation 3.02. Moreover, section 8 of Amendment 35 of the Arkansas Constitution expressly endows the Game and Fish Commission with the authority to \u201cfix penalties for violations.\u201d See State, ex rel. Wright v. Casey, 225 Ark. 149, 279 S.W.2d 819 (1955).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert L. Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.",
      "Bowden Law Firm, by: David O. Bowden, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. Rebecca BICKERSTAFF\nCR 94-1141\n899 S.W.2d 68\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 30, 1995\n[Rehearing denied July 3, 1995.]\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.\nBowden Law Firm, by: David O. Bowden, for appellee.\nRoaf, J\u201e not participating."
  },
  "file_name": "0641-01",
  "first_page_order": 669,
  "last_page_order": 671
}