Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

347 Ark. 355

64 S.W.3d 255

State v. Pruitt

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 10, 2002

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 2002-01-10

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Thomas v. State (2002), State v. Brown (2004)

28 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(c) When a notice of appeal is filed pursuant to either subsection (a) or (b) of this rule, the clerk of the court in which the prosecution sought to be appealed took place shall immediately cause a transcript of the trial record to be made and transmitted to the attorney general, or delivered to the prosecuting attorney, to be by him delivered to the attorney general. If the attorney general, on inspecting the trial record, is satisfied that error has been committed to the prejudice of the state, and that the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law requires review by the Supreme Court, he may take the appeal by filing the transcript of the trial record with the clerk of the Supreme Court within sixty (60) days after the filing of the notice of appeal.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. K.B., State v. Nichols

Relies on Rocha v. State · State v. Guthrie · Addison v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-01-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

T OM GLAZE, Justice,

¶1dissenting. Once again, this court sidesteps review of a search and seizure case that specifically involves the interpretation and application of its rules, Rules 11.1 and 11.2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Our Ride 3(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides for an appeal by the State when the correct and uniform administration of the criminal rules requires review by this court. Here, not only are Rules 11.1 and 11.2 in issue here, but also in question is the purely legal issue of “probable cause.” See Addison v. State, 298 Ark. 1, 765 S.W.2d 566 (1989); see also State v. Sullivan, 340 Ark. 315, 11 S.W.2d 526 (2000) (where we granted review where appeal involved the constitutional safeguards applicable to traffic stops and the misinterpretation and misapplication of Ark. R. Crim. P. 16.2), but see State v. Guthrie, 341 Ark. 624, 16 S.W.3d 10 (2000) (where in a split decision, this court in a search and seizure case similar to Sullivan, refused the State a review under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3(c)). In my view, the majority court was wrong in Guthrie, and it is wrong here, as well.

/347/ark/355 · .json · Public domain