Lewis v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Kyle v. State

    312 Ark. 274 (Ark. 1993)   Cited 50 times
    Drawing a distinction between revocation of a suspended sentence and the mere extension of a probationary period

    Also, the commentary to a statute is a highly persuasive aid to construction, but it is not controlling over the clear language of the statute. See Lewis v. State, 267 Ark. 933, 591 S.W.2d 687 (1980); Mears, County Judge v. Ark. State Hospital, 265 Ark. 844, 581 S.W.2d 339 (1979); Patrick v. State, 265 Ark. 334, 576 S.W.2d 191 (1979); Britt v. State, 261 Ark. 488, 549 S.W.2d 84 (1977). In examining the actual wording of the statutes, we conclude that Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-309 does not apply to appellant's situation.

  2. Roberts v. State

    281 Ark. 218 (Ark. 1984)   Cited 11 times

    1977) provides: "The court shall not be obligated to charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense." See also Lovelace v. State, 276 Ark. 463, 637 S.W.2d 548 (1982); Lewis v. State, 267 Ark. 933, 591 S.W.2d 687 (Ark.Ct.App. 1980). The evidence established that scrapes and pry marks appeared on only one storm window, apparently the point of entry of the home.

  3. Tucker v. State

    622 S.W.2d 202 (Ark. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 6 times

    A directed verdict of acquittal is proper only when no fact issue exists and the Court will review the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence. Lewis v. State, 267 Ark. 933, 591 S.W.2d 687 (Ark.App. 1980). Based upon this standard of review a directed verdict was properly denied in the present case.