Lillie Faye Jackson and Jonathan Tyrell Jackson v. State of Arkansas

Download as PDF
Loading PDF...
Not Designated for Publication DIVISION I CACR06-189 MAY 30, 2007 LILLIE FAYE JACKSON and JONATHAN TYRELL JACKSON APPELLANTS v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE APPEAL FROM T HE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [CR-2004-188A, CR2004-188B] HONORABLE RALPH EDWIN WILSON, JUDGE REBRIEFING ORDERED Appellant Lillie Jackson was convicted by a Crittenden County jury of first-degree battery and permitting the abuse of a minor. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing statements made by the minor to two DHS employees into evidence under Rule 803(24) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. The submitted abstract provides only the challenged testimony without the related objections to the trial testimony, yet the record contains appellant’s repeated objections interrupting the testimony. The abstract is the record on appeal, see Greene v. Pack, 343 Ark. 97, 32 S.W.3d 482 (2000). Therefore, we cannot fully address the argument on appeal until the abstract and brief are supplemented to include those objections. Rule 4-2 (b) sets forth appropriate options when the appellant’s abstract or addendum is insufficient. Rule 4-2(b)(3) states that the Court will afford appellant an opportunity to cure any deficiencies even if the appellee does not call attention to the deficiency. Accordingly, appellant has fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract, Addendum, and brief, to conform to Rule 4-2. G LOVER and M ARSHALL, JJ., agree. -2-