{
  "id": 12023281,
  "name": "Michael CARTER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carter v. State",
  "decision_date": "1996-11-04",
  "docket_number": "95-1022",
  "first_page": "497",
  "last_page": "498",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "326 Ark. 497"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "932 S.W.2d 324"
    }
  ],
  "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": "316 Ark. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907732
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "883 S.W.2d 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1455826,
        1443754
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0001-01",
        "/ark/317/0646-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1455826
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-317",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(g)(2)(A)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 2818,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.783,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.881958177012177e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3685519889383512
    },
    "sha256": "dc56aea3d20d0d6cab7e9ae6b3a25b3ee1264a423e5dac5d8d9f642be74e0812",
    "simhash": "1:1bc1ce347d3e4dd8",
    "word_count": 467
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:12:03.555215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael CARTER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom GLAZE, Justice.\nAppellant Michael Carter, thirteen years old, confessed to a murder committed on November 20, 1994. Following a bench trial, Carter was found guilty of capital murder and adjudicated a delinquent. He raises two points for reversal on appeal, but we affirm because Carter has failed to abstract that part of the record that bears on the points raised.\nCarter first contends the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to suppress his custodial confession. Below, Carter argued his statement resulted from an illegal arrest. He also argued other grounds, including the police officers improperly failed to advise him of his rights, they denied him counsel, and failed to obtain an informed and voluntary waiver of his right against self-incrimination. The trial court held an in camera hearing on Carter\u2019s suppression motion, and the trial court rendered its rulings at the end of that hearing. Carter has abstracted none of this lengthy hearing, and even though the record reflects three and one-half pages, setting out the trial court\u2019s rulings concerning Carter\u2019s custodial statements, Carter has abstracted none of them.\nCarter\u2019s abstracting deficiency extends to his second argument on appeal as well. At trial, Carter objected to the admission of his confession, claiming the waiver-of-rights form he signed prior to giving his statement failed to comply with Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-317(g)(2)(A) (Supp. 1995). Again, Carter\u2019s abstract fails to reflect that part of the record dealing with the trial court\u2019s ruling on the \u00a7 9-27-317(g) (2) (A) issue.\nUnder Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3 (g), it is the duty of the appellant in a criminal case to abstract such parts of the record which are material to the points argued in appellant\u2019s brief. Manning v. State, 318 Ark. 1, 883 S.W.2d 455 (1994). Appellant\u2019s failure to abstract such material parts of the record precludes this court from considering those points on appeal. Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 872 S.W.2d 400 (1994). Because Carter\u2019s abstract is flagrantly deficient, we affirm pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2 (b)(2). See Haynes v. State, 313 Ark. 407, 855 S.W.2d 313 (1993).\nNo law enforcement officer shall question a juvenile who has been taken into custody for a delinquent act or criminal offense if the juvenile has indicated in any manner that he:\n(i) Does not wish to be questioned;\n(ii) Wishes to speak with a parent or guardian or to have a parent or guardian present; or\n(iii) Wishes to consult counsel before submitting to any questioning.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom GLAZE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Horace J. Fikes, Jr., Sharon M. Fortenberry, and C. Thompson Owens, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael CARTER v. STATE of Arkansas\n95-1022\n932 S.W.2d 324\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 4, 1996\nHorace J. Fikes, Jr., Sharon M. Fortenberry, and C. Thompson Owens, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0497-01",
  "first_page_order": 531,
  "last_page_order": 532
}