¶1concurring. The cirustice, motion for new trial should be summarily affirmed. This point on appeal is not preserved for appellate review because Harrison failed to prove the existence of Ingram’s alleged juvenile conviction by means of a proffer under seal. Without such a proffer, any opinion on the merits is merely advisory. For this reason, I respectfully concur.
371 Ark. 652
269 S.W.3d 321
Harrison v. State
Decided December 6, 2007
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 2007-12-06
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2018
22 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2007-12-06
View the full empirical analysis of this case →