Wofford v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Wofford v. State

966 S.W.2d 266, 333 Ark. 120, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 271

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 30, 1998

DocketCR 97-38

StatusPublished

This text of 966 S.W.2d 266 (Wofford 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

Wofford v. State, 966 S.W.2d 266, 333 Ark. 120, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 271 (Ark. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Stephanie Kay Wofford pleaded nolo contendere to first-degree murder. Her plea was conditional, in accordance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b), reserving the right to question on appeal the denial of her motion to suppress certain evidence seized from her home. We remanded the case to the Trial Court to determine if officers who first entered Ms. Wofford’s home under exigent circumstances had seen, in plain view, the items seized by other officers who entered the home later and searched it without a warrant. Our holding was that, if the items had been in plain view to the officers first entering, we would affirm. Wofford v. State, 330 Ark. 8, 952 S.W.2d 646 (1997).

Upon remand, a hearing on the matter was conducted and an order of findings was entered by the Trial Court. The record has been forwarded to us for further action. Accordingly, we will receive additional briefs from the parties. The Clerk of this Court will set a schedule for briefing.

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

Per Curiam.

Stephanie Kay Wofford pleaded nolo contendere to first-degree murder. Her plea was conditional, in accordance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b), reserving the right to question on appeal the denial of her motion to suppress certain evidence seized from her home. We remanded the case to the Trial Court to determine if officers who first entered Ms. Wofford’s home under exigent circumstances had seen, in plain view, the items seized by other officers who entered the home later and searched it without a warrant. Our holding was that, if the items had been in plain view to the officers first entering, we would affirm. Wofford v. State, 330 Ark. 8, 952 S.W.2d 646 (1997).

Upon remand, a hearing on the matter was conducted and an order of findings was entered by the Trial Court. The record has been forwarded to us for further action. Accordingly, we will receive additional briefs from the parties. The Clerk of this Court will set a schedule for briefing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

966 S.W.2d 266, 333 Ark. 120, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wofford-v-state-ark-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack