Hall v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hall v. State

576 S.W.2d 178, 264 Ark. 885, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1271

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 22, 1979

DocketCR 78-157

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 576 S.W.2d 178 (Hall 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

Hall v. State, 576 S.W.2d 178, 264 Ark. 885, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1271 (Ark. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

Conley Byrd, Justice.

From a 30 year sentence entered upon a jury verdict for a single sale of heroin in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, the appellant Sammy Lee Hall appeals.

The record shows that the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, in his argument to the jury, stated that heroin is the worst of drugs and the most damaging to society. In the final argument to the jury, the Prosecuting Attorney made reference to the deterioration of the community due to its young people injecting heroin into their bodies. Appellant pointed out that there was no evidence in the record to support such argument and moved for a mistrial. The trial court overruled the objection and appellant raises the same issue here. We find no merit to the contention for there is no error in arguing to the jury matters about which courts will take judicial notice, Meeks v. State, 161 Ark. 489, 256 S.W. 863 (1923). See also 25 Am. Jur. 2d Drsgs, Narcotics and Poisons § 44.

Affirmed.

Fogleman, J., concurs and Purtle, J., dissents.

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

Conley Byrd, Justice.

From a 30 year sentence entered upon a jury verdict for a single sale of heroin in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, the appellant Sammy Lee Hall appeals.

The record shows that the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, in his argument to the jury, stated that heroin is the worst of drugs and the most damaging to society. In the final argument to the jury, the Prosecuting Attorney made reference to the deterioration of the community due to its young people injecting heroin into their bodies. Appellant pointed out that there was no evidence in the record to support such argument and moved for a mistrial. The trial court overruled the objection and appellant raises the same issue here. We find no merit to the contention for there is no error in arguing to the jury matters about which courts will take judicial notice, Meeks v. State, 161 Ark. 489, 256 S.W. 863 (1923). See also 25 Am. Jur. 2d Drsgs, Narcotics and Poisons § 44.

Affirmed.

Fogleman, J., concurs and Purtle, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 S.W.2d 178, 264 Ark. 885, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-state-ark-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack