¶1I would affirm the case. While Judge Kincannon no doubt disclosed impatience with defense attorney tactics, I think the record as a whole shows that the conduct criticized by the majority was the result of planned aggravation by counsel designed to achieve the very purpose it accomplished; hence the defendant is not entitled to claim prejudice in circumstances where he was inviting reprimand. On the whole I do not think the Court did anything more than to sternly admonish obedience to well-known rules — rules that were being persistently violated.
217 Ark. 679
232 S.W.2d 988
Fuller v. State
Decided October 9, 1950
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1950-10-09
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1950-10-09
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Echols v. State (1996), Kitchen v. State (1980)
26 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 →