 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estacuy v. State9/7/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
This criminal case raises numerous issues relative to appellant's convictions arising out of a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident involving personal injury . Although not raised by either party, we do not reach the merits of this case because of a failure to comply with our abstracting requirements. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2005). We raise issues of deficiencies sua sponte. Kyzar v. City of West Memphis, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (November 4, 2004).
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) requires a first-person condensation of the testimony rather than a repetition of the attorneys' questions and the witnesses' answers. See Coffelt v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 289 Ark. 348, 712 S.W.2d 283 (1986); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Martin, 264 Ark. 266, 571 S.W.2d 416 (1978) (decisions under prior rule). Appellant's abstract is deficient because the testimony adduced at trial has simply been reproduced verbatim in question-and-answer format.
Appellant has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5). A model appellant's brief may be viewed on the Arkansas Judiciary website under court forms at http://courts.state.ar.us. If appellant fails to file a complying abstract, brief, and addendum within the prescribed time, the judgment may be affirmed for noncompliance with our rules. Kyzar v. City of West Memphis, supra. After service of the substituted brief on the appellee, it shall have an opportunity to file a responsive brief in the time prescribed by the Supreme Court Clerk, or to rely upon the appellee's brief that was previously filed in this appeal. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
Rebriefing ordered.
Robbins and Vaught, JJ., agree.
|