# Hunt v. State

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · March 31, 2010 · 2010 Ark. App. 270

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5110467

## Case

- **Full name:** Antonio HUNT v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** March 31, 2010
- **Citations:** 2010 Ark. App. 270; 374 S.W.3d 241; 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 284
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hart
- **Judges:** Brown, Gladwin, Hart
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5110467

## Opinion text

HART, J., concurring.
I agree that this case must be affirmed, but I write separately to set forth my basis for so holding. The appellant is simply wrong when he asserts, in essence, that to be an accomplice, his participation must be substantially similar to that of his codefen-dants. This is not the law.
As the majority correctly notes, our criminal code, in pertinent part, imposes accomplice liability on a person who “aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing the offense.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-403 (a)(2) (Repl.2006). By proving that appellant drove his codefendants to the house that they burglarized and transported them and the stolen property away from the house, the State established that appellant was aiding them in committing the offense. Barber v. State, 2010 Ark.App. 210 , 374 S.W.3d 709 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5110467. Public record. Not legal advice.