Jacobs v. State

870 S.W.2d 740, 316 Ark. 96, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 100
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided February 21, 1994·No. CR 93-1137·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

870 S.W.2d 740 (Jacobs v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shawn Trevell Rainer v. State of Arkansas
2022 Ark. 159 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2022)
Nicholas Long v. State of Arkansas
2022 Ark. App. 69 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2022)