# Proctor v. State

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · November 28, 2001 · 76 Ark. App. 48

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6553490

## Case

- **Full name:** Julian Robert PROCTOR v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** November 28, 2001
- **Citations:** 76 Ark. App. 48; 60 S.W.3d 486; 2001 Ark. App. LEXIS 823
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jennings
- **Judges:** Agree, Griffen, Hart, Hays, Jennings, Neal, Pittman, Robbins, Stroud, Vaught
- **Cited by:** 1 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/6553490

## Opinion text

JOHN E. JENNINGS, Judge, concurring. I join in the majority’s decision to reverse. In my view this result is required by the supreme court’s decision in Scott and Johnson v. State, 272 Ark. 88 , 612 S.W.2d 110 (1981), and Rule 804(b)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. I do not believe that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment requires reversal. And while I agree with the dissent that there was an opportunity to cross-examine at the bond hearing, I do not believe that there was a sufficiently “similar motive” to cross-examine as to the testimony that is relevant in the case at bar. Clearly Rule 804(b)(1) requires both opportunity and “similar motive.”
At the bond revocation hearing, by the time the officer testified about appellant’s admission that he intended to tie Ms. Mayhan up and kill her, there was already evidence before the judge that Proctor had committed burglary. At this stage of the proceedings the revocation of his bond on the prior unrelated charge was a foregone conclusion. For this reason, the attorney at the bond revocation hearing did not have much motive to cross-examine the officer on this particular testimony.
Finally, I must agree with Judge HAYS that the fact that Proctor had a different lawyer at the bond revocation hearing is of no consequence.
PITTMAN and FIart, JJ., join in this concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6553490. Public record. Not legal advice.