Snider v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CACR08-507
WILLIAM EDWARD SNIDER
APPELLANT
Opinion Delivered
January 28, 2009
V.
APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR 2007-1]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE LARRY CHANDLER,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
RE-BRIEFING ORDERED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
A Columbia County jury convicted William Edward Snider of residential burglary, committing
a terroristic act, and two counts of aggravated assault. For these crimes, Snider received consecutive
sentences totaling 384 months in the Arkansas Department of Correction and a fine of $20,000. On
appeal, Snider argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a tape of three 911 calls that
one of the victims, Jana Blackwell, made near the time of his alleged crimes and a video tape of
Blackwell’s statement made to police shortly after they responded to the 911 call. Snider, however,
has failed to abstract or include in his addendum the tape of the 911 calls and videotaped statement.
We therefore order re-briefing.
Because the above-referenced material was omitted from Snider’s abstract and addendum, his
brief does not comply with Rule 4-2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas
Court of Appeals. Rule 4-2(a)(5) requires that an appellant place in his abstract all material parts of
the trial that are necessary for “an understanding of all questions presented to the Court for decision,”
and Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that an appellant’s addendum contain all “relevant pleadings, documents,
or exhibits essential to the understanding of the case.” The 911 tape and the video tape must either
be copied and placed in the addendum or abstracted. See Hodge v. State, 329 Ark. 57, 945 S.W.2d
384 (1997). We direct appellant to cure the deficiency by filing a substituted abstract, addendum, and
brief within fifteen days from the date of the entry of this order. See Rule 4-2(b)(3).
Re-briefing ordered.
PITTMAN and BROWN , JJ., agree.
-2-
CACR08-507
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
