# Hood v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · June 9, 1997 · 329 Ark. 21

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769779

## Case

- **Full name:** Marcus HOOD v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 9, 1997
- **Citations:** 329 Ark. 21; 947 S.W.2d 328; 1997 Ark. LEXIS 368
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Imber, Newbern, Brown
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9769779

## Opinion text

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I concur in this decision but write separately because I would reach the merits of Hood’s argument and affirm based on sufficient evidence.
In Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107 , 883 S.W.2d 831 (1994), we established the bright line rule that a defendant in making a motion for directed verdict must state the specific grounds supporting the motion. The Walker decision was followed by Durham v. State, 320 Ark. 689 , 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995). In Durham, we held that when a criminal defendant makes a specific motion for directed verdict at the close of the State’s case and proceeds to present evidence on his own behalf, a general renewal of all motions at the close of the evidence suffices to preserve a sufficiency argument. See also Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1. In the instant case, Hood complied with the requirements of Durham v. State, supra, and apprised the trial court fully of the argument he now makes on appeal. The trial court then continued the trial, according to the abstract, which is ample indication that the renewal motion was denied. (Indeed, the record includes the trial court’s ruling denying the motion.)
The majority declines to reach Hood’s sufficiency argument for the sole reason that his abstract does not reflect a ruling on the renewal motion. Under our rules, an abstract is “flagrantly deficient” only when it fails to include “such material parts of the . . . record as are necessary to an understanding of the questions presented to the Court for decision.” See Ark. S. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) & 4 — 2(b) (2). Here, the abstract clearly reflects a renewal of the directed-verdict motion followed immediately by the trial court’s continuation of the trial. Common sense should take hold at this juncture and direct this court to the obvious conclusion that the motion was denied.
In a comparable case just last year, three justices of this court concluded that when the abstract showed that a lawyer renewed a motion for directed verdict and the trial judge immediately commenced to instruct the jury, it was clear that the trial judge had, by his actions, denied the lawyer’s renewed motion. See Danzie v. State, 326 Ark. 34, 45 , 930 S.W.2d 310, 316 (1996) (Dudley, J., concurring). The same holds true in this case.
The abstract sufficiently shows that the renewal motion was denied. I would reach the merits.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769779. Public record. Not legal advice.