Aaron Michael Hodge v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
Aaron Michael HODGE v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-406                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 9, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- when exhibits need not be abstracted. -- Rule 4-
     2(a)(6) of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides that
     exhibits need not be abstracted where it is impractical to do
     so and where the appellate court waives the requirement on
     motion.

2.   Appeal & error -- abstracting -- what should be abstracted. -- The
     supreme court directed that what could be abstracted of the
     audiotape in question should be abstracted, assuming that the
     tape was played to the jury and that the statement was a point
     on appeal; only if the statement was completely
     incomprehensible should abstracting be deferred.

3.   Appeal & error -- abstracting -- failure to abstract prejudicial parts
     precludes consideration of videotape on appeal -- motion for leave not to
     abstract denied. -- The supreme court declared that a description
     of what was on the videotape at issue and how it was
     irrelevant, unconstitutional, and prejudicial must be included
     in the abstract; the failure to abstract the prejudicial parts
     of a videotape precludes consideration of the videotape on
     appeal; appellant's motion for leave not to abstract the
     videotape and audiotape exhibits was denied.

     Motion for Leave of the Court To Not Abstract Videotape
Exhibit and Audiotape Exhibit; denied.
     David Copelin, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Brad Newman, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Per Curiam. 
     Appellant Aaron Michael Hodge moves the court for leave not to
abstract an audiotape and videotape exhibit.  Rule 4-2(a)(6) of the
Supreme Court Rules provides that exhibits need not be abstracted
where it is impractical to do so and where this court waives the
requirement on motion.
     With respect to abstracting the audiotape, Hodge maintains its
quality is poor.  Despite the questionable quality, what can be
abstracted of the audiotape should be abstracted, assuming the tape
was played to the jury and the statement is a point on appeal. 
Only if the statement is completely incomprehensible should
abstracting be deferred.
     With respect to the videotape, a description of what is on the
videotape and how it is irrelevant, unconstitutional, and
prejudicial must be included in the abstract.  We recently have
stated that the failure to abstract the prejudicial parts of a
videotape precludes our consideration of the videotape on appeal. 
Evans v. State, 326 Ark. 279, 931 S.W.2d 136 (1996); Donihoo v.
State, 325 Ark. 483, 931 S.W.2d 69 (1996).
     Denied.