Baugh v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Baugh v. State

505 S.W.2d 519, 256 Ark. 64, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1385

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 25, 1974

DocketCR 73-160

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 505 S.W.2d 519 (Baugh v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baugh v. State, 505 S.W.2d 519, 256 Ark. 64, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1385 (Ark. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

GEORGE Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant was charged with driving while intoxicated, the second such offense within a year, was found guilty by the jury, and was fined $250. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§.75-1027 and-1029 (Repl. 1957 and Supp. 1973). He is correct in his contention that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to be told, before they considered the issue of guilt or innocence, that a second offense was involved. We so held in an identical case, Francis v. City of Benton, 240 Ark. 738, 401 S.W. 2d 729 (1966).

We cannot, however, sustain the appellant’s further argument that the charge should be dismissed because there is no such crime as “driving while intoxicated, second offense.” Even though the jury should not initially be told about that aspect of the case, the accused cannot complain about the reference in the information to a second offense. Quite the contrary, it is essential that the State make that fact known to the accused, so that he may have an opportunity to dispute the assertion of a prior conviction. The information in the case at bar seems to be amply clear to serve its purpose, but if the defendant had difficulty in understanding it his remedy was to ask for a bill ol particulars. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1006 (Repl. 1964).

Reversed.

HARRIS, C.J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GEORGE Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant was charged with driving while intoxicated, the second such offense within a year, was found guilty by the jury, and was fined $250. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§.75-1027 and-1029 (Repl. 1957 and Supp. 1973). He is correct in his contention that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to be told, before they considered the issue of guilt or innocence, that a second offense was involved. We so held in an identical case, Francis v. City of Benton, 240 Ark. 738, 401 S.W. 2d 729 (1966).

We cannot, however, sustain the appellant’s further argument that the charge should be dismissed because there is no such crime as “driving while intoxicated, second offense.” Even though the jury should not initially be told about that aspect of the case, the accused cannot complain about the reference in the information to a second offense. Quite the contrary, it is essential that the State make that fact known to the accused, so that he may have an opportunity to dispute the assertion of a prior conviction. The information in the case at bar seems to be amply clear to serve its purpose, but if the defendant had difficulty in understanding it his remedy was to ask for a bill ol particulars. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1006 (Repl. 1964).

Reversed.

HARRIS, C.J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.2d 519, 256 Ark. 64, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baugh-v-state-ark-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack