Snell v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Snell v. State

717 S.W.2d 818, 290 Ark. 184, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 2136

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 20, 1986

DocketCR 85-206

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 717 S.W.2d 818 (Snell 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

Snell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 818, 290 Ark. 184, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 2136 (Ark. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted of the capital felony murder of William Stump and sentenced to death by lethal injection. Among his many points of error is a claim that information was withheld in violation of A.R.Cr.P. Rule 17.1(d) tending to negate the guilt of the appellant. The information was allegedly contained in a statement of John Thomas Holmer. The state denies the claim.

During the trial the state produced the Holmer statement for the trial court’s inspection. When the trial judge pronounced the statement free of exculpatory information the defense asked that it be appended to the record so that it could be reviewed on appeal. That request was denied.

In view of the nature of the case, we think the proper course would have been to include the material in the record and we now order that the record on appeal be supplemented to include the statement of John Thomas Holmer. See Rule 6(e), Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The parties may petition this Court for permission to file a supplemental brief.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted of the capital felony murder of William Stump and sentenced to death by lethal injection. Among his many points of error is a claim that information was withheld in violation of A.R.Cr.P. Rule 17.1(d) tending to negate the guilt of the appellant. The information was allegedly contained in a statement of John Thomas Holmer. The state denies the claim.

During the trial the state produced the Holmer statement for the trial court’s inspection. When the trial judge pronounced the statement free of exculpatory information the defense asked that it be appended to the record so that it could be reviewed on appeal. That request was denied.

In view of the nature of the case, we think the proper course would have been to include the material in the record and we now order that the record on appeal be supplemented to include the statement of John Thomas Holmer. See Rule 6(e), Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The parties may petition this Court for permission to file a supplemental brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 S.W.2d 818, 290 Ark. 184, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 2136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snell-v-state-ark-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack