Jacobs v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Jacobs v. State

870 S.W.2d 740, 316 Ark. 96, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 100

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 21, 1994

DocketCR 93-1137

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 870 S.W.2d 740 (Jacobs 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

Jacobs v. State, 870 S.W.2d 740, 316 Ark. 96, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 100 (Ark. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Bryson Jacobs moves (1) for additional time to file her brief and (2) to supplement the record with enhanced tapes, or their transcription, concerning the alleged drug transaction at issue. The State Crime Laboratory was unable to enhance the tapes, and Jacobs now states that a private firm' in Little Rock may be able to accomplish this. The court reporter’s letter is attached to the motion. She states that the tapes were not transcribed by her at trial because they were for the most part unintelligible and inaudible and contained background noises.

The motions are denied, and the clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule. Enhanced tapes would present this court with evidence not heard by the jury. We are limited on appeal to a review of the record of the trial court proceedings. We will not review evidence not considered by the jury or the trial court and, thus, not contained in the record. Evans v. State, 271 Ark. 775, 610 S.W.2d 577 (1981); Weston v. State, 265 Ark. 58, 576 S.W.2d 705 (1979).

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant Bryson Jacobs moves (1) for additional time to file her brief and (2) to supplement the record with enhanced tapes, or their transcription, concerning the alleged drug transaction at issue. The State Crime Laboratory was unable to enhance the tapes, and Jacobs now states that a private firm' in Little Rock may be able to accomplish this. The court reporter’s letter is attached to the motion. She states that the tapes were not transcribed by her at trial because they were for the most part unintelligible and inaudible and contained background noises.

The motions are denied, and the clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule. Enhanced tapes would present this court with evidence not heard by the jury. We are limited on appeal to a review of the record of the trial court proceedings. We will not review evidence not considered by the jury or the trial court and, thus, not contained in the record. Evans v. State, 271 Ark. 775, 610 S.W.2d 577 (1981); Weston v. State, 265 Ark. 58, 576 S.W.2d 705 (1979).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 S.W.2d 740, 316 Ark. 96, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-state-ark-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack