Novak v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Novak v. State

918 S.W.2d 218, 53 Ark. App. 75, 1996 Ark. App. LEXIS 205

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

DecidedApril 3, 1996

DocketCA CR 95-1109

StatusPublished

This text of 918 S.W.2d 218 (Novak 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.

Bluebook

Novak v. State, 918 S.W.2d 218, 53 Ark. App. 75, 1996 Ark. App. LEXIS 205 (Ark. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

James R. Cooper, Judge.

The appellee has moved to waive the abstracting requirement regarding the contents of a 911 tape that was introduced into evidence at trial. The appellee notes that no transcription of the tape was introduced at trial, and asserts that although the appellant failed to abstract the tape, the contents of the tape itself are necessary for a determination of the issues at hand.

Rule 4-2 (a) (6) of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals provides that, whenever an exhibit which cannot be abstracted in words must be examined for a clear understanding of the testimony, the appellant shall reproduce the exhibit by a suitable process and attach it to the abstract. However, the Rule also permits the appellate court to waive this requirement where it would be impractical. The appellee asserts in its motion that it would be impractical to abstract the tape and, in the absence of any opposition from the appellant, we grant the appellee’s motion.

Motion to waive abstracting requirement granted.

Jennings, CJ., and Mayfield, Rogers, and Neal, JJ., agree. Robbins, Stroud, and Griffen, JJ., would remand.

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

James R. Cooper, Judge.

The appellee has moved to waive the abstracting requirement regarding the contents of a 911 tape that was introduced into evidence at trial. The appellee notes that no transcription of the tape was introduced at trial, and asserts that although the appellant failed to abstract the tape, the contents of the tape itself are necessary for a determination of the issues at hand.

Rule 4-2 (a) (6) of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals provides that, whenever an exhibit which cannot be abstracted in words must be examined for a clear understanding of the testimony, the appellant shall reproduce the exhibit by a suitable process and attach it to the abstract. However, the Rule also permits the appellate court to waive this requirement where it would be impractical. The appellee asserts in its motion that it would be impractical to abstract the tape and, in the absence of any opposition from the appellant, we grant the appellee’s motion.

Motion to waive abstracting requirement granted.

Jennings, CJ., and Mayfield, Rogers, and Neal, JJ., agree. Robbins, Stroud, and Griffen, JJ., would remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

918 S.W.2d 218, 53 Ark. App. 75, 1996 Ark. App. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novak-v-state-arkctapp-1996.