Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Johnson v. State

686 S.W.2d 443, 285 Ark. 347, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 1914

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 1, 1985

DocketCR 85-53

StatusPublished

This text of 686 S.W.2d 443 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 686 S.W.2d 443, 285 Ark. 347, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 1914 (Ark. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

John I. Purtle, Justice,

dissenting. I would grant the writ because I think all parties are entitled to know whether they are trying a misdemeanor or a felony. The time and money saved is great if we hold that the offense is a misdemeanor. On the other hand, if we hold it is a felony no one is injured because all trial courts have plenty of cases to try without these. Needless to say an accused will not suffer harm unless he is being held in custody awaiting trial.

Newbern, J., joins in this dissent.

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

John I. Purtle, Justice,

dissenting. I would grant the writ because I think all parties are entitled to know whether they are trying a misdemeanor or a felony. The time and money saved is great if we hold that the offense is a misdemeanor. On the other hand, if we hold it is a felony no one is injured because all trial courts have plenty of cases to try without these. Needless to say an accused will not suffer harm unless he is being held in custody awaiting trial.

Newbern, J., joins in this dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 S.W.2d 443, 285 Ark. 347, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 1914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-ark-1985.