¶1concurring. I concur. In Williams v. State, 6 Ark. App. 410, 644 S.W.2d 608 (1982), I dissented because I believed definite guidelines should be established when the admissibility of impeachment evidence under Rule 609 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence is involved. The majority court in Williams rejected my views on the subject and refuses again in this cause to compel the trial court to make its findings required under the Rule 609 balancing process to be on the record. While I now join the majority in the result it reached in this case, I still have the same opinion as I expressed in my dissent in Williams.
12 Ark. App. 46
670 S.W.2d 819
Lincoln v. State
Decided June 20, 1984
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · decided 1984-06-20
Relies on Williams v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1984-06-20
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2006
14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →