# Bell v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 10, 1988 · 296 Ark. 458

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9640731

## Case

- **Full name:** J.C. BELL v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 10, 1988
- **Citations:** 296 Ark. 458; 757 S.W.2d 937; 1988 Ark. LEXIS 410
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Dudley
- **Judges:** Purtle, Holt, Glaze, Dudley, Newbern
- **Cited by:** 27 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/9640731

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that reversal is required when a significant step in a case is taken in an accused’s absence if it appears that he has lost an advantage or has been prejudiced

## Opinion text

Robert H. Dudley, Justice, dissenting. I dissent to that part of the majority opinion which affirms the conviction even though the appellant was absent when substantial steps were taken in his case.
The majority opinion fully recites the accused’s constitutionally guaranteed right to be present in person and by attorney whenever any substantial step is taken in his case. I wholeheartedly agree, and would reverse on this point because the appellant was not present when his motion for continuance and commitment was heard.
The majority opinion attempts to beg the issue by stating that the appellant waived a hearing since he did not request one. The facts simply do not sustain the majority position. The judge’s docket sheet entry for March 20, 1974, five days before trial, reflects:
3/20/74 Motion for continuance filed by defendant, J.C. Bell, presented and denied. (Emphasis supplied.)
3/20/74 Order for examination by SE Ark. Mental Health Clinic 19-605.
On the same day the trial court entered an order directing two medical doctors at a local health clinic to examine the appellant and determine if there were reasonable grounds to believe he was insane. As can be seen from the above evidence, the hearing was not waived, and, in fact, the motion was presented and denied.
It is undisputed that the appellant was not present when the motion was presented and denied. Therefore, the accused was not present in person when substantial steps were taken in his case. This has long been held to be reversible error. Bearden v. State, 44 Ark. 331 (1884); Bennett v. State, 62 Ark. 516 , 36 S.W. 947 (1896);Kinnemer v. State, 66 Ark. 206 , 49 S.W. 815 (1899); and Stroope v. State, 72 Ark. 379 , 80 S.W. 749 (1904).
Newbern, J., joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9640731. Public record. Not legal advice.