{ "id": 5367207, "name": "Myron Kent GEORGE v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "George v. State", "decision_date": "2004-03-04", "docket_number": "CR 01-871", "first_page": "345", "last_page": "358", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "356 Ark. 345" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "151 S.W.3d 770" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "261 Ark. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1678918 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "remanded for hearing to determine whether defendant struck a deal with the prosecutor to give a statement in return for immunity" }, { "parenthetical": "remanded for hearing to determine whether defendant struck a deal with the prosecutor to give a statement in return for immunity" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/261/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 Ark. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1756222 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "remanded for an explicit determination by the trial court on voluntariness of confession" }, { "parenthetical": "remanded for an explicit determination by the trial court on voluntariness of confession" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/271/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "303 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1882760 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "remanded for a Denno hearing" }, { "parenthetical": "remanded for a Denno hearing" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/303/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 Ark. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 9159645 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "remanded for a new suppression hearing on voluntariness of statement because material police witness not present at first hearing" }, { "parenthetical": "remanded for a new suppression hearing on voluntariness of statement because material police witness not present at first hearing" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/324/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 Ark. 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 9158408 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/324/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "351 Ark. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1158955 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/351/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 Ark. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1155533 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/353/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-13-510", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 S.W.3d 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "case_ids": [ 939033, 939039 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/345/0355-01", "/ark/345/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 Ark. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 939039 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/345/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 Ark. 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1365318 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/340/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 Ark. 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900905 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/306/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "348 Ark. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 74167 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/348/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 Ark. 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 683340 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/347/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "351 Ark. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1158877 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/351/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 Ark. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1404488 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/350/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-401", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 Ark. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1878611 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/284/0247-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 Ark. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1155549 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/353/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 Ark. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 236197 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/329/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 S.W.3d 931", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "weight": 5, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 Ark. 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1158953 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/351/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 Ark. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1111313 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/346/0022-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 844, "char_count": 21866, "ocr_confidence": 0.73, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.450441261979903e-07, "percentile": 0.880137992601113 }, "sha256": "7c59d93e62e54279ebe49cf04a6bade88f0afbbc0981cd2f5b402ca219718703", "simhash": "1:ceadc094125a3dd1", "word_count": 3568 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:43:53.781338+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Myron Kent GEORGE v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Ray Thornton, Justice.\nAfter a Greene County Deputy jound what appeared to be a meth lab in a shed on the property of appellant, Myron George, both appellant and Martin Strugala were arrested. Following appellant\u2019s arrest, a search, executed pursuant to a warrant, revealed a working meth lab, components used to produce methamphetamine, and finished methamphetamine. In a criminal information, appellant was charged with being an accomplice in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, and theft by receiving.\nPrior to trial, appellant filed a pro se motion seeking to suppress all evidence obtained during the search of his property. An in-chambers hearing was held on appellant\u2019s motion to suppress, but the record does not contain a transcript of the proceedings relating to the suppression hearing. A notation on the docket sheet merely states that appellant\u2019s motion was denied.\nDuring the process of the trial, appellant\u2019s attorney informed the trial court that he objected to Nila Keels, a court reporter who was not certified, transcribing the proceedings. The trial court noted the objection, but stated that he had granted Ms. Keels an emergency certification which would permit her to transcribe the trial. When appellant\u2019s counsel persisted in his objection, the trial court ordered him to proceed or face contempt charges.\nAt the close of the evidence, the trial court granted appellant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict on the charge of theft by receiving, but permitted the remaining charges to be considered by the jury. The jury found appellant guilty as an accomplice to manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine. Appellant was sentenced to ten years\u2019 imprisonment for his convictions.\nAppellant filed a notice of appeal from his convictions. The deadline for filing the record on appeal was August 9, 2001. On August 8, 2001, appellant tendered a partial record and filed a motion seeking a rule on the clerk. We remanded the matter back to the trial court and directed it to take \u201cwhatever actions are necessary to secure the prompt certification of a full and complete record for appeal in this matter.\u201d George v. State, 346 Ark. 22, 53 S.W.3d 526 (2001). Upon remand, the trial court held a hearing and entered an order finding the there were \u201cno substantive defects in the transcript as prepared by Nila Keels.\u201d It further found that \u201cthe transcript is sufficiently accurate for use and consideration by the Arkansas Supreme Court for all appellate purposes.\u201d Thereafter, appellant\u2019s attorney filed a renewed motion for a rule on the clerk. We granted appellant\u2019s motion and permitted our clerk to file the record prepared by Nila Keels. George v. State, 351 Ark. 209, 209 S.W.3d 931 (2002). This appeal followed.\nOn appeal, appellant offers four points for our consideration. We remand this case to the trial court for the limited purpose of conducting an on-the-record hearing on appellant\u2019s motion to suppress.\nIn his first point on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motions for directed verdicts on the charges of being an accomplice to the manufacturing of methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine. We must address this point before considering other assignments of error in order to preserve appellant\u2019s right to freedom from double jeopardy. Rankin v. State, 329 Ark. 379, 948 S.W.2d 397 (1997). A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586, 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Id. Additionally, when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider evidence, which may have been inadmissible, in the light most favorable to the State. See Harris v. State, 284 Ark. 247, 681 S.W.2d 334 (1984).\nAppellant was convicted of violating Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-401 (Supp. 1999). The jury concluded that appellant was manufacturing methamphetamine. Appellant\u2019s criminal liability was based upon his status as an accomplice. In cases where the theory of accomplice liability is implicated, we affirm a sufficiency of the evidence challenge if substantial evidence exists that the defendant acted as an accomplice in the commission of the alleged offense. Cook v. State, 350 Ark. 398, 86 S.W.3d 916 (2002).\nArkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 5-2-402 (Rep. 1997), articulates the elements necessary to establish that a person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person. The statute provides:\nA person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person when:\n(1) He is made criminally liable for the conduct of another person by the statute defining the offense; or\n(2) He is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense; or\n(3) Acting with the culpable mental state sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes another person to engage in conduct that would constitute an offense but for a defense available to the other person.\nId. Arkansas Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-403 (Repl. 1997), gives the statutory definition of an accomplice:\n(a) A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, he:\n(1) Solicits, advises, encourages, or coerces the other person to commit it; or\n(2) Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing it; or\n(3) Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort to do so.\n(b) When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, a person is an accomplice in the commission of that offense if, acting with respect to that result with the kind of culpability sufficient for the commission of the offense, he:\n(1) Solicits, advises, encourages, or coerces the other person to engage in the conduct causing the result; or\n(2) Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in planning or engaging in the conduct causing the result; or\n(3) Having a legal duty to prevent the conduct causing the result, fails to make proper effort to do so.\nId. We have explained that relevant factors in determining the connection of an accomplice to a crime are the presence of the accused in proximity of a crime, the opportunity to commit the crime, and an association with a person involved in a manner suggestive of joint participation. Clem v. State, 351 Ark. 112, 90 S.W.3d 428 (2002). A defendant is an accomplice so long as the defendant renders the requisite aid or encouragement. Atkinson v. State, 347 Ark. 336, 64 S.W.3d 259 (2002).\nMindful of the relevant statutory provisions and case law, we must determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support appellant\u2019s conviction. Deputy Mark Davis of the Greene County Sheriff s Department testified that he was on patrol when he drove past appellant\u2019s home at approximately 4:00 a.m. As he drove past the home, he noticed a light on in a shed located on appellant\u2019s property. When Deputy Davis drove back by the location, the light was turned off, and he decided to stop and investigate. Deputy Davis then discovered that a vehicle owned by Martin Strugala, an individual previously arrested for manufacturing methamphetamine, was parked in appellant\u2019s driveway. Upon exiting his car, Deputy Davis smelled anhydrous ammonia coming from the shed. As he approached the shed, Deputy Davis noticed a smoldering bum pile that contained strips of aluminum and coffee filters. He also saw a plastic gas container and what he described as a \u201cpill soak jar.\u201d Additionally, Deputy Davis testified that he saw some stripped lithium batteries. Deputy Davis explained that acid from the lithium batteries is used by individuals who manufacture methamphetamine. Deputy Davis then instructed appellant to exit the shed. Appellant complied with Deputy Davis\u2019s order, and Martin Strugala also exited the shed. As Strugala exited the shed, Deputy Davis saw a cloud of smoke coming from inside the shed. Deputy Davis explained that he had seen this occurrence many times in other meth labs. Deputy Davis testified that he would consider what he observed at appellant\u2019s home to be a working meth lab.\nToby Carpenter, formerly a narcotics investigator with the Greene County Sheriffs Department, also testified at appellant\u2019s trial. He explained that after appellant and Mr. Strugala were arrested, a search warrant for appellant\u2019s property was obtained. Officer Carpenter testified that during the search of appellant\u2019s shed, property, and home, law enforcement officials found coffee filters, quart jars, a Coleman fuel can, a can of acetone, two five-gallon propane tanks, salt, drain cleaner, a hydrochloric generator, lithium batteries, and several containers with white residue on them. Officer Carpenter explained how each component was used in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. Officer Carpenter also testified that they found lithium salt on coffee filters in the burn pile by the shed on appellant\u2019s property. Lithium and salt are also used to manufacture methamphetamine. During the search, a white powder, which was forty-five percent methamphetamine hydrochloride, was also in appellant\u2019s shed. Additionally, law enforcement officials found methamphetamine at various stages of processing in appellant\u2019s shed. Officer Carpenter stated that based on his experience, it appeared to him that appellant and Mr. Strugala had been manufacturing methamphetamine on the night of their arrest. Finally, Officer Carpenter testified that appellant informed him that he knew that the \u201cmeth lab\u201d was in his shed, and he knew that Mr. Strugala was manufacturing the drug.\nMartin Strugala testified that he was serving an eighteen-year sentence in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He was appellant\u2019s co-defendant and pleaded guilty to drug-related charges. Mr. Strugala admitted that he was manufacturing methamphetamine on the day that he and appellant were arrested and that he had stored the items needed to make the drug in appellant\u2019s shed. He further stated that appellant knew that the items were stored in his shed. Finally, Mr. Strugala testified that the hydrochloric generator, the drain opener, the jars-located outside of the shed, and the battery metal did not belong to him.\nAfter reviewing the foregoing evidence, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence whereby a jury could have concluded that appellant was acting as an accomplice to Martin Strugala in the manufacturing of methamphetamine. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied appellant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict.\nNext, we must determine whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that appellant possessed methamphetamine. The drug was found in appellant\u2019s shed and in a vehicle parked on his property. We have explained that the State need not prove that the accused physically possessed the contraband in order to sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance if the location of the contraband was such that it could be said to be under the dominion and control of the accused. Walley, supra. Constructive possession may be established by circumstantial evidence. Polk v. State, 348 Ark. 446, 73 S.W.3d 609 (2002). When seeking to prove constructive possession, the State must establish that the defendant exercised care, control, and management over the contraband. Id. This control can be inferred from the circumstances, such as the proximity of the contraband to the accused, the fact that it is in plain view, and the ownership of the property where the contraband is found. Nichols v. State, 306 Ark. 417, 815 S.W.2d 382 (1991).\nIn the case now before us, methamphetamine was found in a container on the seat of a truck parked on appellant\u2019s property. The container was located next to beer that belonged to appellant in a vehicle Mr. Strugala identified as appellant\u2019s. Additionally, methamphetamine was found in the floor of a shed located on appellant\u2019s property. Deputy Davis testified that he witnessed appellant exit the shed prior to the drugs being discovered. The components needed to manufacture the drug were found in appellant\u2019s home, in appellant\u2019s shed, and on appellant\u2019s property. Additionally, appellant admitted to Officer Toby Carpenter that he had a \u201cmeth problem\u201d and that he purchased drugs from Martin Strugala, an individual who was present prior to the drugs being discovered in appellant\u2019s shed and in the vehicle Strugala testified was driven by appellant. We conclude that there was substantial evidence whereby the jury could have concluded that appellant possessed methamphetamine.\nWe next consider appellant\u2019s argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial that was based on an alleged discovery violation made by the State. Specifically, appellant argues that the State violated Rule 17.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to provide him with a copy of a statement made by him to Officer Toby Carpenter. This issue is not preserved for our review.\nTo preserve an issue for appeal a defendant must object at the first opportunity. Pyle v. State, 340 Ark. 53, 8 S.W.3d 491 (2000). A party who does not object to the introduction of evidence at the first opportunity waives such an argument on appeal. Id. The policy reason behind this rule is that a trial court should be given an opportunity to correct any error early in the trial, perhaps before any prejudice occurs. Id:\nIn the case now before us, Officer Carpenter testified that appellant informed him that he had used methamphetamine and that the drugs were supplied by Martin Strugala. Officer Carpenter also testified that appellant told that him that he knew Mr. Strugala was manufacturing methamphetamine in his shed. After Officer Carpenter had been excused, appellant\u2019s attorney raised an objection based on the State\u2019s alleged failure to comply with the rules for discovery. This objection, which was not made at the first opportunity, was untimely. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant has waived a challenge to the admission of this evidence on appeal.\nAppellant\u2019s next two allegations of error are intertwined. First, appellant argues that the record was not properly completed and that the trial court failed to comply with our order on remand because there is no record of the hearing held on his motion to suppress. Next, appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress, and that because the record does not contain a transcript from the hearing on his motion, we cannot conduct our de novo review of this issue.\nOn August 8, 2001, appellant filed a partial record and a motion seeking a rule on the clerk. In his motion, appellant explained that Nila Keels was not a certified court reporter at the time of his trial and requested that we accept a record for his appeal that did not contain a transcription of the testimony that occurred at trial. George v. State, 346 Ark. 22, 53 S.W.3d 526 (2001). We denied appellant\u2019s motio'n and remanded the matter back to the trial court with instructions that it \u201ctake whatever actions are necessary to secure the prompt certification of a full and complete record for appeal in this matter.\u201d Id.\nUpon remand, the trial court entered an order finding the there were \u201cno substantive defects in the transcript as prepared by Nila Keels.\u201d George v. State, 351 Ark. 209, 209 S.W.3d 931 (2002). It further found that \u201cthe transcript is sufficiently accurate for use and consideration by the Arkansas Supreme Court for all appellate purposes.\u201d Id. Thereafter, appellant\u2019s attorney filed a renewed motion for a rule on the clerk. In the per curiam in which we considered appellant\u2019s motion, we explained the procedure whereby we will accept a record that was not transcribed by a certified court reporter. Citing Mitchell v. State, 345 Ark. 359, 45 S.W.3d 846 (2001) (per curiam), we wrote \u201cour Supreme Court Clerk would only be directed to accept a record prepared by an uncertified court reporter upon certification by the attorneys of record by means of affidavits that the transcript was true, accurate, and complete.\u201d George v. State, 351 Ark. 209, 209 S.W.3d 931 (2002). By contrast, in this case now under consideration, we were provided a certification from the prosecuting attorney and a finding of accuracy by the trial court. However, appellant\u2019s attorney refused to certify as to the accuracy of the record. We concluded that the trial court\u2019s findings and the prosecuting attorney\u2019s affidavit certifying the transcript to be a fair and accurate record of appellant\u2019s trial sufficiently satisfied the Mitchell requirements to allow our clerk to accept the record for filing. George v. State, 351 Ark. 209, 209 S.W.3d 931 (2002).\nAlthough we accepted the record for filing with our clerk on the basis of the certification by the prosecuting attorney and the finding of sufficiency by the trial court, we agree with appellant that the record now before us is flawed. Specifically, we are unable to conduct a de novo review of the disposition of appellant\u2019s motion to suppress because there is no transcript of the hearing that was held on the motion.\nAdministrative Order No. 4 provides \u201cunless waived on the record by the parties, it shall be the duty of any circuit court to require that a verbatim record be made of all proceedings pertaining to any contested matter before it.\u201d See also Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-13-510; Ark. R. Crim. P. 20.3(e); Robinson v. State, 353 Ark. 372, 108 S.W.3d 622 (2003); Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394, 94 S.W.3d 904 (2003); Smith v. State, 324 Ark. 74, 918 S.W.2d 714 (1996).\nIn the case now before us, appellant, relying upon Rule 16.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure filed a pro se motion seeking to suppress \u201call evidence illegally obtained.\u201d A review of the docket sheet reveals that a hearing on appellant\u2019s motion was held \u201cin chambers\u201d and that the motion was \u201cdenied.\u201d However, a verbatim account of the hearing is not included in the record. In his brief, appellant notes:\nCounsel for defendant has a definite memory of the hearing which was supposed to be on the record. The prosecutor... stated... that he had no memory of whether the hearing was on or off the record, but noted that it would be unusual for his office to allow a suppression hearing off-the-record. Ms. Keels [the court reporter] could find no record she made of the hearing.\nOn appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. The record on this issue is unclear. If the hearing was held, but was not recorded verbatim, the trial court ignored Administrative Order No. 4. If the hearing was held and properly recorded, but omitted from the record filed with our clerk, the trial court disregarded our previous order to take whatever actions are necessary to secure. . . a full and complete record for appeal in this matter.\u201d Under either scenario, we find that the trial court erred.\nTo resolve this error, we will employ the limited-remand procedure, which we have used in other cases. See Rankin, supra (remanded for a new suppression hearing on voluntariness of statement because the record did not contain an account of any such hearing); Bell v. State, 324 Ark. 258, 920 S.W.2d 821 (1996) (remanded for a new suppression hearing on voluntariness of statement because material police witness not present at first hearing); Moore v. State, 303 Ark. 1, 791 S.W.2d 698 (1990) (remanded for a Denno hearing); Harris v. State, 271 Ark. 568, 609 S.W.2d 48 (1980) (remanded for an explicit determination by the trial court on voluntariness of confession); Hammers v. State, 261 Ark. 585, 550 S.W.2d 432 (1977) (remanded for hearing to determine whether defendant struck a deal with the prosecutor to give a statement in return for immunity). We direct the trial court on remand to hold a hearing on the record with a certified court reporter for the limited purpose of developing the evidence, arguments, and allegations relating to a full consideration of appellant\u2019s pretrial suppression motion.\nAfter conducting the hearing, if the trial court determines that the evidence was illegally obtained, the trial court should suppress the evidence and order a new trial. If the trial court determines that the evidence was not illegally obtained, a new trial will not be required. Rankin, supra. Because we are remanding this matter for a new hearing on appellant\u2019s motion to suppress, and because a denial of appellant\u2019s motion in this hearing will be appealable, we need not reach the issue relating to the trial court\u2019s denial of appellant\u2019s motion to suppress in this appeal.\nRemanded.\nAlthough not fully developed in his pretrial motion, appellant argued at trial that the evidence should have been excluded because Deputy Mark Davis lacked reasonable suspicion to stop at his home and that this unlawful stop and search led to his arrest and the issuance of a warrant for a further search of his property.\nBecause we have no record of the suppression hearing, we do not know what evidence or arguments were presented in support of appellant\u2019s motion.", "type": "majority", "author": "Ray Thornton, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Bowden & Smith, by: David O. Bowden, for appellant.", "Mike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Myron Kent GEORGE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 01-871\n151 S.W.3d 770\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 4, 2004\nBowden & Smith, by: David O. Bowden, for appellant.\nMike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0345-01", "first_page_order": 369, "last_page_order": 382 }