Wilson v. City of Pine Bluff

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Wilson v. City of Pine Bluff

643 S.W.2d 569, 278 Ark. 65, 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1612

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedDecember 20, 1982

DocketCR82-149

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 643 S.W.2d 569 (Wilson v. City of Pine Bluff) 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

Wilson v. City of Pine Bluff, 643 S.W.2d 569, 278 Ark. 65, 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1612 (Ark. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The petitioner seeks a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals on the ground that the case involves the interpretation of the United States Constitution and of the Arkansas Constitution (the right of a person to be confronted with the witnesses against him). We do not agree. When the language of the federal and state constitution is identical, as in the instance of the confrontation clause, the due process clause, and several others, and there is no reason for us to construe our constitution other than in the same way as the federal constitution has been construed, we take the view that the case presents a federal question, not a state one under Rule 29 (1) (a). Here, for example, the main Arkansas case cited in the petition for certiorari merely followed decisions elsewhere with respect to the confrontation clause. Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 1152, 143 S.W.2d 190(1940).

Since the case does not involve an interpretation of our constitution, there was no reason for the appeal to have been filed here or to have been transferred by the Court of Appeals. The petition for review must therefore be denied. Moose v. Gregory, 267 Ark. 86, 590 S.W.2d 662 (1979). As indicated by the Moose case, our denial of the petition for review does not imply that we approve or disapprove of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Writ denied.

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

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The petitioner seeks a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals on the ground that the case involves the interpretation of the United States Constitution and of the Arkansas Constitution (the right of a person to be confronted with the witnesses against him). We do not agree. When the language of the federal and state constitution is identical, as in the instance of the confrontation clause, the due process clause, and several others, and there is no reason for us to construe our constitution other than in the same way as the federal constitution has been construed, we take the view that the case presents a federal question, not a state one under Rule 29 (1) (a). Here, for example, the main Arkansas case cited in the petition for certiorari merely followed decisions elsewhere with respect to the confrontation clause. Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 1152, 143 S.W.2d 190(1940).

Since the case does not involve an interpretation of our constitution, there was no reason for the appeal to have been filed here or to have been transferred by the Court of Appeals. The petition for review must therefore be denied. Moose v. Gregory, 267 Ark. 86, 590 S.W.2d 662 (1979). As indicated by the Moose case, our denial of the petition for review does not imply that we approve or disapprove of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Writ denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 S.W.2d 569, 278 Ark. 65, 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-city-of-pine-bluff-ark-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack