{
  "id": 236229,
  "name": "Michael WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1997-09-18",
  "docket_number": "CR 97-204",
  "first_page": "511",
  "last_page": "512",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "329 Ark. 511"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "951 S.W.2d 304"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "306 Ark. 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900959
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/306/0443-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-13-310",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12022424
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 Ark. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        922675
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/327/0105-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 2803,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.732,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6707111057985687e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6959127732929603
    },
    "sha256": "37e26a609cc3ccdcf0981634232440101b426b8f12b4b2b2d8c9b14ffbd45184",
    "simhash": "1:9e82894e0468dea0",
    "word_count": 457
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:12.305718+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Arnold, C.J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Michael WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nMichael Watson was convicted of two counts of first-degree battery, one count of felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of terroristic threatening. The evidence showed that Mr. Watson shot and injured Kenyon Coleman and Jonathan Young and pointed his pistol at Tremmel Prudhomme outside a fraternity house in Arkadelphia while a party was in progress. He was sentenced to 102 years in prison. Mr. Watson\u2019s sole point of appeal relates to the battery convictions. He contends the Trial Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree battery. We affirm because no such instructions were proffered to the Trial Court.\nOn numerous occasions, most recently in Dixon v. State, 327 Ark. 105, 937 S.W.2d 642 (1997), and Wallace v. State, 326 Ark. 376, 931 S.W.2d 113 (1996), we have restated the rule that an appellant who seeks reversal based on the failure to instruct the jury as requested by the appellant must present a record showing a proffer of the requested instruction. The record in this case does not contain any such proffer; thus, we must affirm on the point without further consideration.\nThe State has cross-appealed from a directed verdict or dismissal granted in Mr. Watson\u2019s favor with respect to a charge of terroristic act. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-13-310(a)(2) (Repl. 1993). The statute prohibits shooting \u201cwith the purpose to cause injury to persons or property at an occupiable structure.\u201d As abstracted by Mr. Watson, it appears that the Trial Court granted a directed-verdict motion but in the course of doing so said the charge was \u201cdismissed\u201d because Mr. Watson was shooting at a person rather than at an occupiable structure.\nWhether the charge was dismissed due to a technical defect or resulted in no conviction because of insufficiency of the evidence, it is apparent that the language of the allegation is significant. We have no idea what the allegation was because neither Mr. Watson nor the State has abstracted an information or amended information charging Mr. Watson with a terroristic act. It is an appellant\u2019s, in this case a cross-appellant\u2019s, duty to present a record to the Court sufficient to permit review of the error it asserts. Failure to abstract a critical document precludes this Court from considering issues concerning it. Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 872 S.W.2d 400 (1994); Porchia v. State, 306 Ark. 443, 815 S.W.2d 926 (1991).\nAffirmed on appeal and affirmed on cross-appeal.\nArnold, C.J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alvin Schay, for appellant/cross-appellee.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee/cross-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 97-204\n951 S.W.2d 304\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 18, 1997\nAlvin Schay, for appellant/cross-appellee.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee/cross-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0511-01",
  "first_page_order": 535,
  "last_page_order": 536
}