Perkins v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Perkins v. State

609 S.W.2d 59, 271 Ark. 595, 1980 Ark. LEXIS 1717

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedDecember 22, 1980

DocketCR 80-197

StatusPublished

This text of 609 S.W.2d 59 (Perkins 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

Perkins v. State, 609 S.W.2d 59, 271 Ark. 595, 1980 Ark. LEXIS 1717 (Ark. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

Arnold Lee Perkins was convicted in Pope County Circuit Court of rape and on appeal raises only one argument.

The argument is made that the trial court unduly limited Perkins’ counsel from inquiring of prospective jurors concerning their understanding of the State’s burden of proof. It may be that the court was wrong in observing that a prospective juror could not be questioned concerning the juror’s understanding of the question of reasonable doubt. The court remarked that the question should be limited to whether the prospective juror would follow the law. Fauna v. State, 265 Ark. 934, 582 S.W. 2d 18 (1979); Griffin v. State, 239 Ark. 431, 389 S.W. 2d 900 (1965).

The difficulty we have with appellant’s argument is that there was no objection or protest at all made to the trial court’s remarks and, consequently, we cannot deal with it on appeal. Hulsey v. State, 261 Ark. 449, 549 S.W. 2d 73 (1977); Neal v. State, 259 Ark. 27, 531 S.W. 2d 17 (1975); Nash v. State, 248 Ark. 323, 451 S.W. 2d 869 (1970).

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.

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

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

Arnold Lee Perkins was convicted in Pope County Circuit Court of rape and on appeal raises only one argument.

The argument is made that the trial court unduly limited Perkins’ counsel from inquiring of prospective jurors concerning their understanding of the State’s burden of proof. It may be that the court was wrong in observing that a prospective juror could not be questioned concerning the juror’s understanding of the question of reasonable doubt. The court remarked that the question should be limited to whether the prospective juror would follow the law. Fauna v. State, 265 Ark. 934, 582 S.W. 2d 18 (1979); Griffin v. State, 239 Ark. 431, 389 S.W. 2d 900 (1965).

The difficulty we have with appellant’s argument is that there was no objection or protest at all made to the trial court’s remarks and, consequently, we cannot deal with it on appeal. Hulsey v. State, 261 Ark. 449, 549 S.W. 2d 73 (1977); Neal v. State, 259 Ark. 27, 531 S.W. 2d 17 (1975); Nash v. State, 248 Ark. 323, 451 S.W. 2d 869 (1970).

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 S.W.2d 59, 271 Ark. 595, 1980 Ark. LEXIS 1717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-state-ark-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack