declaration error in Arkansas

1990In State v. Hand, 6 Ark. 169 (1845) and State v. Denton, 6 Ark. 259 (1845), this court refused to entertain appeals by the state because the defendants had been acquitted and, hence, “the questions sought to be raised are mere abstract questions without any cause legally existing upon which the decisions of this court could have effect.” Similarly, m State v. Biscoe, 12 Ark. 683 (1852), we dismissed the state’s appeal because the issue was “simply a dry abstract point of law.” In 1846 the legislature attempted to correct State v. Hand, supra, by statutory provisions appearing in Goulds Digest,

1990In State v. Hand , 6 Ark. 169 (1845) and State v. Denton, 6 Ark. 259 (1845), this court refused to entertain appeals by the state because the defendants had been acquitted and, hence, "the questions sought to be raised are mere abstract questions without any cause legally existing upon which the decisions of this court could have effect." Similarly, in State v. Biscoe, 12 Ark. 683 (1852), we dismissed the state's appeal because the issue was "simply a dry abstract point of law." In 1846 the legislature attempted to correct State v. Hand, supra , by statutory provisions appearing in Goulds Dige

2017Similarly, in this case, although the State argues a declaration of error is needed to ensure correctness and uniformity across the state in similar resentencing cases, we are not convinced, given the unique circumstances presented here, 3 Cite as 2017 Ark. 311 that this appeal would have “widespread ramifications” on interpretation of our criminal rules.

2017On motion of the defense, the circuit court dismissed the theft charges based on a defect in the 1 The concurring opinion states that, “On appeal, the State contends in the jurisdictional statement of its brief to this court that the issue on appeal is ‘whether the circuit court erred by acquitting [Martin] based on this court’s search-and-seizure decision in Fowler, [ 2010 Ark. 431 , 371 S.W.3d 677 ].’” However, a review of the entire jurisdictional statement demonstrates that the State went on to provide that “[b]ecause an acquittal is not an appropriate remedy for a search-and-seizure viola

2017On motion of the defense, the circuit court dismissed the theft charges based on a defect in the 1 The concurring opinion states that, “On appeal, the State contends in the jurisdictional statement of its brief to this court that the issue on appeal is ‘whether the circuit court erred by acquitting [Martin] based on this court’s search-and-seizure decision in Fowler, [ 2010 Ark. 431 , 371 S.W.3d 677 ].’” However, a review of the entire jurisdictional statement demonstrates that the State went on to provide that “[b]ecause an acquittal is not an appropriate remedy for a search-and-seizure viola

1891That the property once belonged to the execution defendant, and that it had been transferred by him to the interpleader before the levy, were conceded facts; the only issue was as to the character -of the transfer, whether fraudulent or bona fide ; and as to this, possession raised no presumptions. 1 Greenleaf, Ev., sec. 34, note; Rawley v. Brown, 71 N. Y., 85 . 3. when gift The interpleader asked an instruction, in substance, that if his father, with no intent to hinder or delay his creditors, fore the issue of the execution in this cause, gave him the property, the gift was valid; and the co