{
  "id": 12023597,
  "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. TIEN Ngoc Doan and Trung Do",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tien Ngoc Doan",
  "decision_date": "1996-11-11",
  "docket_number": "CR 96-348",
  "first_page": "583",
  "last_page": "585",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "326 Ark. 583"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "933 S.W.2d 369"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "325 Ark. 35",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        369130
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/325/0035-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12020582
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Tien I"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "Tien I"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12021902
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0266-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12020582
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "72"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0071-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 281,
    "char_count": 4388,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41077607227293944
    },
    "sha256": "8902c401726e623198e5cc265b86cc887e588c9e214e55eb843e684ba201fd23",
    "simhash": "1:5de6497cdbcf1962",
    "word_count": 738
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:12:03.555215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glaze, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of Arkansas v. TIEN Ngoc Doan and Trung Do"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nPetitioner State of Arkansas requests rehearing on several grounds and seeks clarification of whether this court\u2019s decision in State v. Tien, 326 Ark. 71, 929 S.W.2d 155 (1996) (Tien I), affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision to suppress confessions or, alternatively, dismissed the State\u2019s appeal. As the State points out, the difference between affirmance of the trial court\u2019s order and dismissal of the State\u2019s appeal in this context is important in that if our decision in Tien I affirmed the trial court\u2019s suppression order \u201cin its entirety,\u201d this would bar further proceedings against respondents Tien and Trung under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure \u2014 Criminal 3(d).\nIn Tien I, the respondents filed a motion to affirm the trial court\u2019s order in this court due to the State\u2019s failure to file its appellate brief in timely fashion, and the State responded and simultaneously moved that we accept its late brief. Because the State\u2019s brief had not been filed by the final extension date, we quoted from State v. Parkman, 325 Ark. 35, 923 S.W.2d 281 (1996), where we warned of future dismissals in the event the State\u2019s brief in State appeals was not filed by the date of the final extension. In light of the fact that the State\u2019s brief had not been filed by the final-extension date in this case, we affirmed the order of the trial court in Tien I and dismissed the appeal.\nIt is clear from the history of this matter outlined above that we did not consider the merits of the trial court\u2019s suppression order in Tien I. Rather, we affirmed the trial court\u2019s order on the sole basis that the State\u2019s brief was not timely filed. Thus, we did not sustain the trial court\u2019s order \u201cin its entirety\u201d in order to effect a complete bar to subsequent prosecution as Appellate Rule \u2014 Criminal 3(d) contemplates. Our decision in Tien I is more akin to a dismissal of the State\u2019s appeal as we discussed in State v. Parkman, supra.\nWe, therefore, grant rehearing for the purpose of holding that the State\u2019s appeal is dismissed and that we are not affirming the trial court\u2019s suppression order so as to bar further proceedings in this matter. The effect of our decision is to allow the State to prosecute the respondents, should it so desire, but without the availability of the suppressed statements as evidence. At the same time, we deny the State\u2019s petition that we reverse our order of dismissal.\nGlaze, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      },
      {
        "text": "Tom GLAZE, Justice,\ndissenting. The State asks this court to correct its earlier mistakes in dismissing this case because the Attorney General filed a late brief. The State points out that this court\u2019s earlier opinion granted the defendants\u2019 request to affirm the trial court\u2019s suppression order on its merits, thereby barring the State from further prosecuting defendants. Without actually saying it had erred by using the word \u201caffirm,\u201d the majority court now says, \u201cIt is clear from the history of this matter outlined above that we did not consider the merits of the trial court\u2019s suppression order in Tien 7.\u201d In short, even when the majority court recognizes its mistake, it cannot concede the mistake in plain terms. I submit that when this court sends mixed signals in the same opinion such as \u201caffirm\u201d and \u201cappeal dismissed,\u201d nothing about that opinion can be considered clear.\nHowever, the primary problem with the majority court\u2019s supplemental opinion is that it fails to concede its failure to follow its rules and long-established precedent when dismissing the state\u2019s appeal. As I previously have emphasized, this court has never dismissed a criminal appeal because an attorney failed to file a timely brief. See Glaze, J., dissenting opinions, State v. Tien, 326 Ark. 71, 72, 929 S.W.2d 155 (1996); Bowden v. State, 326 Ark. 266, 931 S.W.2d 104 (1996). This court\u2019s unwillingness to admit its errors in this case does little to preserve the integrity of its decisions. In my sixteen years on the appellate bench, this decision is undoubtedly the worst I have seen from this court. I would reverse Tien I before its precedential value causes further harm.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Tom GLAZE, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly K. Hill, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Sam Sexton III and Jeanne Ann Whitmire, for respondents-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. TIEN Ngoc Doan and Trung Do\nCR 96-348\n933 S.W.2d 369\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 11, 1996\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly K. Hill, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for petitioner-appellant.\nSam Sexton III and Jeanne Ann Whitmire, for respondents-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0583-01",
  "first_page_order": 585,
  "last_page_order": 587
}