prior drunk driving convictions admissible “to prove the warning quality of the other convictions and to infer that the respondent must have arrived at a mental state inconsistent with mistake and consistent with the culpable mental state of causing serious physical injury ‘under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.’ ”
How later courts described this case
- prior drunk driving convictions admissible “to prove the warning quality of the other convictions and to infer that the respondent must have arrived at a mental state inconsistent with mistake and consistent with the culpable mental state of causing serious physical injury ‘under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.’ ”
- prior driving under the influence convictions and revocation of drivers license properly admitted as evidence of intent under rule 404(b) to “prove warning quality of the other convictions, and to infer ... a mental state inconsistent with mistake and consistent with culpable mental state.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. I concur with the result. I have not changed the view I expressed in Martin v. State, 261 Ark. 80 , 547 S.W.2d 81 (1977). Therefore, I can find no “intent” or culpable mental state in the charge of first degree battery. I feel the prior convictions were admissible simply to rebut Vowell’s statement that the vehicular collision was an accident. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 404 (b); Enriquez v. U.S., 188 F.2d 313 (9th Cir. 1951).
Purtle, J., joins in this concurrence.