*1 530 degree of second could be convicted
which the appellant that this could have objected argues murder. Appellant first and between in their deliberation confused jury In our therefore prejudicial. murder and was degree second 29, 1979, the applicable we said Per Curiam of January state the accurately be used unless it does AMCI must to the state would unfair law. The appellant’s position theories given. either of the could have supported evidence 709, State, (1979). Ark. S.W. 2d 571 See Sumlin v. 587 266 Further, would the alternate theories it here that appears as it provided inasmuch advantage to the appellant’s guilty find appellant double opportunity with jury no prejudice. has demonstrated Appellant lesser offense. Affirmed.
Hays, not participating. J., WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, His Mother and Marie THE FOR v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION Next Friend DISTRICT MARIANNA SCHOOL S.W. 2d Arkansas Court of Supreme 11, delivered Opinion January *2 Grimm, Services, Inc., Q. East Ark. for Legal Charles appellant. Dover, Daggett, & Van
Daggett, Daggett by: Jimason J. for appellee. Hickman, Court of Lee Darrell Circuit Justice. to refused to a of mandamus
County, issue writ for the Board Education the Marianna School District Williams, the as a the reinstate student. was from school absentee- for excessive appellant, sought ism the writ. We find and affirm no error judgment.
Williams, old, year a sixteen sophomore was a class He had missed his science physical Marianna schools. He went expelled. times in one semester and was fourteen board and school superintendent principal, decision. objecting to the decision, from the circuit court
On appeal failed That court raises four reversal: arguments conclusions of law make written of fact and findings Williams; due that he denied process; requested by to dismiss a student law does not school board permit state nonattendance; and, school board failed indefinite, are vague, follow its own rules and that the rules and, unreasonable, therefore, The only unconstitutional. *3 rules issue of substance raised is the one regarding and policy. be is a student
It that the rules argued only permit classes, if twelve and he has missed not days, twelve expelled him. The school that the school officials wrongly expelled record, we do have before rules were not all a but part of those rules read: provisions us which day A is to attend pupil every Attendance: expected assigned to which he is school and to class every be made of each of school. An account must during day fails to meet this each instance wherein a pupil expectation. miss no twelve may (12) days per
A more than pupil from and semester excused or unexcused class any credit for course receive work.
Excessive absenteeism for grounds expul- is sufficient be shall any pupil. sions Excessive absenteeism failure to a sufficient number defined as attend school days eligible to be in course work. credit These provisions obviously student permit did; he missed one what Williams expelled undisputably and, times over twelve for that reason he could course course, credit for the he could be expelled. receive that he that stating admitted missed the classes Williams on the school not understand the course. He stayed could football usually watching that class grounds during period, miss mean that he had to argues He that the rules practice. of twelve without classes attending any school a total absent before he could expelled. actually he had missed the science four full but physical class ten other times. interpre-
We cannot the school rules or their say or are unconstitutionally vague tation school authorities indefinite. we cannot the court was Certainly, say a discre- a writ of mandamus on such wrong denying matter. tionary
The other issues are also without merit. Before trial
filed a
for written
of fact and
findings
motion
there
conclusions of law. The motion was not renewed and
was made to the court
no evidence that such a request
court,
or
The
during
hearing.
orally
after
bench,
cannot
elaborated on
the writ was denied. We
why
find
on
error
this issue.
prejudicial
that Ark. Stat. Ann.
argument
(Repl.
for non-
1980) does not
a student
to be
permit
in Fortman v.
attendance was
argument
precisely
*4
7,
130,
Texarkana School Dist. No.
Ark.
Williams his mother met with the Williams’ mother met with the school superintendent. his Williams and mother before the school board appeared with a and a record of that There lawyer hearing. was made was an abundance of due in this case. process
The decision to dismiss was one within the board. This court does not have the to power power substitute its judgment for that of such a board. Safferstone Tucker, 70, v. (1962); Pugsley Ark. v. 235 S.W. 3 2d 247, Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. (1923). S.W. 538 We can was arbitrary, capricious, the judgment determine whether find in this case. so law. We cannot or to contrary Affirmed. J.,
Purtle, dissents. I Once dissenting. again Purtle, I. Justice, John school in a majority opinion dissent respectfully the fact that has overlooked majority think the district case. I to a free right public had a the appellant (as Art. 14 amended evidenced by education as § of Arkansas which 53) No. to the Constitution Amendment states: liberty safeguards being and virtue
Intelligence government, free and good bulwark of a and the and a suitable general, ever maintain State shall and shall adopt of free schools public system efficient the advan- to secure to people all suitable means education. . . . and tages opportunities statutory right also had a The appellant (Repl. Ark. Ann. Stat. pursuant schools public § 1980) which states: State district this schools of
The public of the free through completion shall be open in the ... domiciled to all persons secondary program, district. . .
Furthermore, to attend under statutory compulsion There is even school as Ark. Stat. 80-1502. required by the compulsory with comply for failure penalty attendance law. re- and indeed are authority have the
School boards govern operation to make rules to quired specific *5 Ark. Stat. their districts. schools within in provides part: district may suspend any of school any
The directors conduct, immorality, refractory from school person insubordination, disease, infectious habitual unclean- liness, the that would tend to impair or other conduct school, the other . . . of the or harm pupils discipline school sets out of the part The majority opinion which to set a very important portion but failed out policies states: during missed a total of five (5) days
When a has pupil semester, investiga- will conduct an principal any the cause of absenteeism. The parents tion to determine and informed of the results of the will be notified is of he guilty truancy, If the found investigation. pupil (3) days. to Rebound School for three will be suspended be followed when a has pupil The will procedure same of school in semester. (10) any missed a total ten the school board policy contemplated It is obvious that of a who missed a total of student expulsion is that that of the policy quoted It true days. portion states that excessive absenteeism sufficient majority absenteeism It further states that grounds expulsion. school a shall be defined as failure to attend sufficient in number of to be for credit course work. There eligible is no that if misses classes in one policy a student entire course he might subject expulsion that the school. I think the admitted principal very candidly school did in not follow its own policy appellant neither given five-day ten-day warning nor stated: required. principal
I think it would have been different if I had performed an attendance check time to catch Jimmy missed too was never many days. assigned . Rebound School for his attendance . . problem. It is obvious from the and laws the state Constitution as well as the school board the relevant policies, above, of which are set out had both portions schools. statutory right to attend public could, course, He for the remainder of any *6 in Ark. set out Stat. of the reasons for any
term one to be a proper board policy we consider 80-1516. If the appellant the state of the laws of under of the policy reading reinstated. The over-all entitled to be be subject that a student it was intended shows that clearly school. The record missing days after expulsion four of school had missed shows appellant 3,1981. about 14 He had missed on March he suspended However, he remained science classes. of his physical classes and continued time he these skipped school at the doubt, authorities if the school his other classes. No him, five after policies, as required had warned subject he was science class that from his physical absences classes, changed he would have if he missed expulsion his conduct. the course of received procedural probably though appellant
Even due not receive substantive he did certainly due process, he never missed evidence shows The undisputed process. of his lose all A student does from school. the school he enters upon when rights both has been denied the appellant In my opinion, premises. to attend public rights and constitutional his statutory life to an the road of been sent upon and perhaps existence into which unrewarding type unproductive of his as a result to function may ill-equipped from school. expulsion