Wicks v. State

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wicks v. State
the Arkansas Supreme Court
2768356Wicks v. State19890the Arkansas Supreme Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

270 Ark. 781

Wayne Wicks  v.  State of Arkansas

Appeal from Yell Circuit Court

No. CR 79-194.---Delivered: October 20, 1980 

Court Documents
Opinion of the Court

  1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—GUIDELINES FOR JURY—UNNECESSARY EXCEPT IN CAPITAL CASES.—The Supreme Court adheres to its view that guidelines to help the jury in its deliberations are unnecessary except in capital cases.
  2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—DUE PROCESS—IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT ON CASE BY CASE BASIS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.—The common law approach to allow juries representing the common sense of the community to impose punishment on a case by case basis is not a denial of due process of law.
  3. TRIAL—SPONTANEOUS REMARK ABOUT POLYGRAPH TEST—NO ERROR IN REFUSING TO GRANT MISTRIAL.—Where the prosecutrix made a spontaneous remark concerning a polygraph test which she had taken, it was not error for the court to refuse to grant a mistrial where the court promptly instructed the jury to disregard the statement.
  4. TRIAL—MISTRIAL—WHEN MISTRIAL WARRANTED.—A mistrial is such a drastic measure that it is warranted only if justice could not be served by going on with the trial.
  5. APPEAL & ERROR—DUTY OF APPELLANT TO PROVIDE TRANSCRIPT—RECONSTRUCTION OF TRANSCRIPT.—The appellant has the burden of supplying a transcript, and, if a transcript cannot be obtained, it is appellant's duty to reconstruct one pursuant to Appellate Procedure Rule 6(d) (1979) by obtaining what used to be called a bystander's bill of exceptions.
  6. APPEAL & ERROR—OBJECTION IN TRIAL COURT REQUIRED—EXCEPTIONS.—An argument for reversal will not be considered in the absence of an appropriate objection, except in a few instances recognized in prior opinions of the court.

Appeal from Yell Circuit Court, Charles Eddy, Judge; affirmed.

Robert A. Newcomb, for appellant.

Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: James F. Dowden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

[Opinion of the court by Justice GEORGE ROSE SMITH. Justice RICHARD L. MAYS concurred without opinion.]

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).

A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse