Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 Ark. App. 372

Brewer v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided December 23, 1998

Court of Appeals of Arkansas · decided 1998-12-23

Relies on Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-12-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2021

9 state decisions

401998200020102020decided

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 →

E. Jennings, Judge,

¶1dissenting. While I agree with the majority of this court that there are potential problems in connection with the motion, I cannot join in the court’s disposition. I would grant the motion.

¶2The majority’s concerns are quite reasonable. If criminal defendants are misusing the system to obtain transcripts at State expense when they are not entitled to do so, that is a cause for concern. But here we draw the inference that there is necessarily a problem and, on our own motion, remand the matter to the trial court with instructions. When we raise and decide issues sua sponte we are somewhat more likely to go astray.

¶3It is the State, through the attorney general’s office, who represents the people in criminal proceedings. I would leave it to the State to represent the people in this matter and ask for relief if the process is being abused. Here, the State has not opposed the motion for substitution of counsel.

¶4Finally, I must concede that we took a similar approach in Smith v. State, 63 Ark. App. 31, 970 S.W.2d 336 (1998).

¶5For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.

¶6Pittman, Stroud, Neal, and Roaf, JJ., join in this dissent.

/64/arkapp/372 · .json · Public domain