Edward Darnell Rogers v. State of Arkansas — Womack, J., Concurring

Summary

The concurrence joins the majority's conclusion that theft of property is treated as a crime involving dishonesty under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) and that any evidentiary error was harmless. It questions whether treating every theft conviction as inherently dishonest is consistent with the statutory definition of theft and with the narrower treatment of uncharged theft under Rule 608(b), but declines to revise the rule because the issue was insufficiently developed and the error was harmless. Justice Baker, dissenting, would have found the error prejudicial and ordered a new trial.