Smith v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Irvin v. State

    28 Ark. App. 6 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 12 times

    Also, the party alleging error is required to demonstrate that prejudice did in fact exist. Smith v. State, 10 Ark. App. 390, 664 S.W.2d 505 (1984). In the instant case, appellant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the fact that he did not see the photographs prior to trial.

  2. Dildine v. Clark Equipment Co.

    686 S.W.2d 791 (Ark. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    "The law is settled that the introduction of photographs rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge." Smith v. State, 10 Ark. App. 390, 664 S.W.2d 505 (1984). In Horne v. State, 12 Ark. App. 301, 677 S.W.2d 856 (1984) the Court of Appeals upheld the admission of a shirt into evidence which had been washed since the crime was committed.

  3. Tiggs v. State

    700 S.W.2d 65 (Ark. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    Concerning appellant's argument that the State's failure to call the polygraph examiner as a material witness was error, we must note that the record fails to show the appellant objected to this at either the Denno hearing or the trial. Because appellant failed to make a timely objection, we cannot consider the issue for the first time on appeal. Smith v. State, 10 Ark. App. 390, 664 S.W.2d 505 (1984). Even if appellant had objected, we are inclined to agree with the State's argument that the examiner was not a material witness because he was not present when appellant gave his statement.