criminal case violation in Arkansas

2015The first is Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), which, as the majority apparently agrees, stands for the proposition that a comment on the failure of a defendant to testify in a criminal case is a violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2015The first is Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), which, as the majority apparently agrees, stands for the proposition that a comment on the failure of a defendant to testify in a criminal case is a violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2022Nonsupport is a Class C felony if the person owes more than $10,000, but less than $25,000, in past-due child support, pursuant to a court order or by operation of law.7 Section 5-26-401(g) provides that it is an affirmative defense to prosecution of nonsupport 4 Dye v. State, 70 Ark.

2015The second, not discussed by the majority, is Mosby v. State, 246 Ark. 963 , 440 S.W.2d 230 (1969), where this court reversed a conviction because the circuit court gave an instruction that referred to a defendant’s right to not testify.

2015The second, not discussed by the majority, is Mosby v. State, 246 Ark. 963 , 440 S.W.2d 230 (1969), where this court reversed a conviction because the circuit court gave an instruction that referred to a defendant’s right to not testify.

2005The rationale of adopting this criminal-case standard was well stated by the Ohio Court of Appeals: “Where the proceeding contemplates the loss of parents’ ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil rights to raise their children, the test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases is equally applicable to actions seeking to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental custody.” In re Heston, 129 Ohio App. 3d at 827 , 719 N.E.2d at 95 (quoting In re Murray, 52 Ohio St. 3d 155, 157 , 556 N.E.2d 1169, 1171 (1990)) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); Meyer v. Nebras

2005The rationale of adopting this criminal-case standard was well stated by the Ohio Court of Appeals: “Where the proceeding contemplates the loss of parents’ ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil rights to raise their children, the test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases is equally applicable to actions seeking to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental custody.” In re Heston, 129 Ohio App. 3d at 827 , 719 N.E.2d at 95 (quoting In re Murray, 52 Ohio St. 3d 155, 157 , 556 N.E.2d 1169, 1171 (1990)) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); Meyer v. Nebras

2005The rationale of adopting this criminal-case standard was well stated by the Ohio Court of Appeals: “Where the proceeding contemplates the loss of parents’ ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil rights to raise their children, the test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases is equally applicable to actions seeking to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental custody.” In re Heston, 129 Ohio App. 3d at 827 , 719 N.E.2d at 95 (quoting In re Murray, 52 Ohio St. 3d 155, 157 , 556 N.E.2d 1169, 1171 (1990)) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); Meyer v. Nebras

2005The rationale of adopting this criminal-case standard was well stated by the Ohio Court of Appeals: “Where the proceeding contemplates the loss of parents’ ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civil rights to raise their children, the test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases is equally applicable to actions seeking to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental custody.” In re Heston, 129 Ohio App. 3d at 827 , 719 N.E.2d at 95 (quoting In re Murray, 52 Ohio St. 3d 155, 157 , 556 N.E.2d 1169, 1171 (1990)) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); Meyer v. Nebras

1985The test to be applied in a criminal case when an instruction is refused is: “[d]oes the ommission infect the entire trial so that the resulting conviction violates due process?” Conley v. State, 270 Ark. 886 , 607 S.W.2d 328 (1980); Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145 (1977).

1985The test to be applied in a criminal case when an instruction is refused is: “[d]oes the ommission infect the entire trial so that the resulting conviction violates due process?” Conley v. State, 270 Ark. 886 , 607 S.W.2d 328 (1980); Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145 (1977).

1985The test to be applied in a criminal case when an instruction is refused is: “[d]oes the ommission infect the entire trial so that the resulting conviction violates due process?” Conley v. State, 270 Ark. 886 , 607 S.W.2d 328 (1980); Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145 (1977).

1985Gardner v. State, 263 Ark. 739, 746 , 569 S.W.2d 74 (1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 911 (1979).

1985Gardner v. State, 263 Ark. 739, 746 , 569 S.W.2d 74 (1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 911 (1979).

1985Gardner v. State, 263 Ark. 739, 746 , 569 S.W.2d 74 (1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 911 (1979).

1970Appellant argues that Fuller has been overruled by the later case of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), and Simpson v. Rice, consolidated with Pearce.

1950Martin v. Bacon, 76 Ark. 158 , 88 S. W. 863 , 113 Am.

1950Martin v. Bacon, 76 Ark. 158 , 88 S. W. 863 , 113 Am.