{
  "id": 1445758,
  "name": "Willie Earl JONES v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. State",
  "decision_date": "1996-02-19",
  "docket_number": "CR 95-1073",
  "first_page": "496",
  "last_page": "498",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "323 Ark. 496"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "915 S.W.2d 722"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "289 Ark. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875440
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 Ark. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1753646
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/275/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-701",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 Ark. 587",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1443816
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/317/0587-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 2662,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.909,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05436378723238305
    },
    "sha256": "559c82f23fb88f4a6732e311bc6ba8e832dbbd712dde1877631a3bea1bda9d61",
    "simhash": "1:1a6e31f075eb390a",
    "word_count": 448
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:17:29.924838+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Willie Earl JONES v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nWillie Earl Jones was convicted of five drug-related offenses and sentenced as an habitual criminal with four or more prior offenses to 37 years imprisonment. We reversed the conviction. Jones v. State, 317 Ark. 587, 880 S.W.2d 522 (1994). Upon retrial Mr. Jones was again convicted on five counts and sentenced to life imprisonment. Mr. Jones appeals only from one delivery count. He contends the evidence is insufficient because the State failed to prove drugs were delivered by him in exchange for money or something of value. We hold the evidence was sufficient and affirm.\nIn December 1992 Mr. Jones was the focus of an undercover investigation being conducted by the Pulaski County Drug Task Force. Detective Vickie Beaty-Lawson and a confidential informant were sent to a house occupied by Mr. Jones to purchase crack cocaine from him. The second of several such encounters occurred on December 7, 1992. Detective BeatyLawson testified that on that occasion she and the informant went to Mr. Jones\u2019s residence where they were greeted by him and asked what they needed. She said they had $60. Mr. Jones gave two \u201clarge rocks\u201d to the informant who handed them to her. She said she handed the informant the money in Mr. Jones\u2019s presence. Mr. Jones correctly contends there is no evidence that the money was then handed to him.\nThe penalty for delivery of a Schedule I drug, such a cocaine, is prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-701(a) (Repl. 1993). Subsection (b) of the statute defines \u201cdelivery\u201d as follows:\nFor the purposes of this section, the term \u201cdelivery\u201d means the actual or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance. . .in exchange for money or anything of value, whether or not there is an agency relationship.\nAs we explained in Anderson v. State, 275 Ark. 298, 630 S.W.2d 23 (1982), followed by Marshall v. State, 289 Ark. 462, 712 S.W.2d 894 (1986), by stating \u201cattempted transfer\u201d as part of the definition of \u201cdelivery,\u201d the General Assembly made it unnecessary to show an \u201cexchange for money or anything of value\u201d in order to prove a delivery.\nThere was ample evidence that Mr. Jones at least attempted to transfer cocaine to another in exchange for money.\nThe record has been examined in accordance with Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-3(h), and no errors requiring reversal have been found.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Deputy Public Defender.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Willie Earl JONES v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 95-1073\n915 S.W.2d 722\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 19, 1996\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Deputy Public Defender.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0496-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 532
}