Murchison v. State
This text of 2014 Ark. App. 87 (Murchison v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 87
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-13-714
THOMAS OLIVER Opinion Delivered February 12, 2014 MURCHISON, III APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. CR2012-245-IV]
HONORABLE MARCIA R. STATE OF ARKANSAS HEARNSBERGER, JUDGE APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED
BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge
Appellant Thomas Oliver Murchison, III, was convicted of driving while intoxicated,
first offense, by the Hot Springs District Court. Murchison appealed to the Garland County
Circuit Court and filed a motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication, arguing that an
illegal traffic stop occurred. The trial court denied the motion, and Murchison entered a
conditional plea of no contest. On appeal to this court, Murchison argues that the trial court
erred in denying his motion to suppress because there was no probable cause to stop his
vehicle. We cannot, however, reach the merits of Murchison’s arguments at this time due to
a briefing deficiency.
Murchison was stopped by a state trooper on March 20, 2011, based on the trooper’s
observation of several alleged traffic violations. The trooper’s patrol car had a dash-camera
video recording from the trooper’s perspective as he followed Murchison’s vehicle. Although Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 87
it is referenced in the argument section of his brief, Murchison failed to include a copy of the
video in his addendum. Among other arguments, Murchison contends that no other vehicles
were affected by his failure to use a turn signal; that the video did not capture his crossing the
fog line; and that the trooper’s adjustment of the angle of the camera shortly after the stop for
a wider field of vision proves that the stop was a pretext to perform field-sobriety tests.
The DVD was an exhibit offered by the State that is essential for this court to
understand the case and decide the issues on appeal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8) (2013).
Therefore, Murchison has seven calendar days from the date of this opinion to supplement
his addendum with the DVD of the traffic stop. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4).
Supplemental addendum ordered.
PITTMAN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian, P.A., by: Jim Julian; and Brent A. Miller, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 Ark. App. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murchison-v-state-arkctapp-2014.