Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A citizen of Cleburne County submitted a petition for a local ballot initiative, titled the “Hand Marked, Hand Counted Paper Ballot Ordinance of 2024,” to the county clerk for inclusion in the 2024 general election. The county clerk rejected the petition, determining that there were insufficient valid signatures because some paid canvassers were not Arkansas residents as required by law. The canvassers later submitted supplemental affidavits listing Arkansas addresses, but the clerk still refused to count those signatures.The petitioner then filed suit in the Cleburne County Circuit Court, seeking a writ of mandamus and an injunction to compel the clerk to count the disputed signatures and certify the petition if it met the signature requirements. After an expedited hearing, the circuit court granted both the writ and the injunction, ordering the clerk to count all signatures, including those “cured” by the supplemental affidavits, and to certify the petition if it was sufficient.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the circuit court could require the county clerk to certify a local ballot initiative that was not timely filed under the Arkansas Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution sets the exclusive timeline for filing local initiative petitions—no sooner than ninety days and no later than sixty days before the election. The petition in question was filed too early for the 2024 election and, by operation of statute, would have been certified for the 2026 election, but it was also untimely for that election under the constitutional timeline. The Supreme Court held that the relevant statutory provisions were unconstitutional to the extent they conflicted with the constitutional timeline. The court reversed the circuit court’s order and dismissed the case, holding that a circuit court cannot require certification of an untimely initiative. View "EVANS v. HARRISON" on Justia Law

In 2007, an individual was confronted by a store employee outside a Walmart in Hot Springs regarding stolen merchandise. The individual responded by brandishing a firearm. A jury in Garland County found him guilty of aggravated robbery, and he was sentenced to thirty years in prison. The Arkansas Court of Appeals later affirmed both his conviction and sentence.The individual subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Chicot County Circuit Court, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. He argued that the criminal information in his case was not properly file-marked or accompanied by the required cover sheet, allegedly depriving the trial court of jurisdiction. The circuit court found that he had previously raised identical claims in an earlier petition and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis, concluding that he failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the circuit court’s denial of pauper status for abuse of discretion. The court held that the petitioner’s arguments regarding the lack of a file-mark and cover sheet did not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court, but rather amounted to claims of trial error. The court further found that the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the criminal case and that the petitioner failed to state a colorable cause of action for habeas relief. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the petition to proceed in forma pauperis. View "CARTER v. PAYNE" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder following the stabbing death of his fiancée. He was sentenced as a violent-felony habitual offender to life imprisonment. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, he filed a timely postconviction petition under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. His claims included that his attorney failed to move for dismissal based on a speedy-trial violation, did not object to double hearsay in a voicemail admitted at trial, failed to obtain a transcript of the voicemail, did not properly advise him about a plea offer, requested a mental evaluation without his consent, and failed to investigate or obtain certain cell-phone records.The Pulaski County Circuit Court, Seventh Division, reviewed the petition. The court found that the periods of delay in bringing the defendant to trial were excludable under Arkansas law, so a speedy-trial motion would not have succeeded. The court also determined there was no evidence that the State possessed a transcript of the voicemail or that the defense was denied access to it, and that the defense had thoroughly cross-examined the relevant witness. The court found the record contradicted the claim that the defendant was misadvised about the plea offer, as the terms were explained in detail on the record. The court further concluded that the request for a mental evaluation was not outside the bounds of reasonable professional assistance and that there was no evidence it affected the outcome of the trial. Some claims were not preserved for review because the circuit court did not rule on them.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court’s denial of postconviction relief. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice as required by Strickland v. Washington, and that the circuit court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. View "NEAL v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

In this case, the owners of a residential property in Fayetteville, Arkansas, sought to rent their home as a short-term rental when not in residence. The City of Fayetteville had enacted an ordinance regulating short-term rentals, requiring a license for all such properties and a conditional-use permit for certain types in residential zones. The ordinance also imposed a cap on the number of these rentals. After applying for a conditional-use permit, the property owners’ application was denied by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, which found the proposed rental incompatible with the neighborhood due to the number of similar rentals nearby.Following the denial, the property owners attempted to appeal to the Fayetteville City Council, but their appeal was not sponsored by the required number of council members. They then filed an administrative appeal in the Washington County Circuit Court, along with claims for declaratory and constitutional relief. They also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the ordinance while their case was pending. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the administrative appeal was untimely. The circuit court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but left the constitutional claims pending.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed only the denial of the preliminary injunction, as the dismissal of the administrative appeal was not properly before it due to the absence of a final, appealable order. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction, finding no irreparable harm and no likelihood of success on the merits at this stage. The denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed, and the appeal of the administrative dismissal was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "HAUSE v. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION" on Justia Law

A woman was found dead in her home in Booneville, Arkansas, after police were alerted by her children. The investigation quickly focused on her former boyfriend, who had recently ended a relationship with her and was seen with blood on his clothing the night of the incident. Evidence included a confession, DNA linking him to the scene, and testimony that he entered the home through a window, confronted the victim, and strangled her after a physical altercation. The victim’s vehicle was also taken and later found abandoned.The Logan County Circuit Court held a jury trial in December 2022. The jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder, residential burglary, and theft of property, and imposed a sentence enhancement for committing murder in the presence of a child. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus additional consecutive terms and fines. During trial, the court denied the defendant’s motions for directed verdict on all charges and the sentence enhancement, denied motions to suppress his statements to law enforcement, admitted certain autopsy photographs over objection, and excluded some mitigating evidence at sentencing due to late disclosure.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed four main issues: sufficiency of the evidence, admissibility of custodial statements, admission of autopsy photographs, and exclusion of mitigating evidence. The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the murder conviction and that the defendant’s sufficiency arguments regarding burglary, theft, and the sentence enhancement were not preserved for review. The court found no error in admitting the defendant’s statements or the autopsy photographs, and it upheld the exclusion of the late-disclosed mitigating evidence. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "WEATHERFORD v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

On December 25, 2022, Nathaniel Fort and his brother, Tarus Walker, went to Aaron Bruce’s apartment to confront him over an alleged assault involving Walker’s child. Walker was armed with an AK-47 rifle, and Fort carried two .40-caliber handguns. After Bruce left his apartment and joined his cousin, Patrick Ross, to discuss the matter, Walker shot Bruce, who fell to the ground. Fort then fired multiple shots into Bruce as he lay on the ground. The two men fled the scene in a vehicle matching the description of Fort’s mother’s car. Police recovered .40-caliber shell casings and bullets near Bruce’s body, and Bruce died at the scene from multiple gunshot wounds.The case was tried in the Miller County Circuit Court. During trial, the prosecution sought to admit Bruce’s autopsy report after the medical examiner who performed the autopsy became unavailable due to illness. Fort objected, arguing that the report required proper attestation and a supporting witness for admission. The circuit court overruled the objection, finding that Fort had waived his right to cross-examine by not subpoenaing a medical examiner or filing a notice of intent to cross-examine. The autopsy report was admitted, and Fort was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, Fort challenged the admission of the autopsy report, the denial of his right of allocution, and the sufficiency of the prosecutor’s short report of circumstances. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the circuit court erred in admitting the autopsy report without proper attestation, but found the error harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt and the cumulative nature of the report. The court also held that Fort’s allocution and report objections were unpreserved for appeal. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "FORT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

The case concerns William Coston, who was accused of sexually abusing a minor over several years, beginning when the victim was four years old. The abuse included multiple acts of rape, the introduction of controlled substances, and sexually grooming the child. Initially, Coston was charged with three counts of rape, but the State later amended the charges to include a total of ten counts of rape, one count of introduction of a controlled substance into the body of another person, and one count of sexually grooming a child. The evidence supporting these charges had been available to the defense throughout the discovery process.The Garland County Circuit Court presided over Coston’s jury trial in March 2024. Prior to trial, the State amended the criminal information to add the additional charges. Coston objected to the timing and number of the new charges, arguing that the amendment was arbitrary and created confusion, but he acknowledged that the evidence supporting the charges had been disclosed from the outset. He did not move to strike the amendment or request a continuance. The circuit court overruled his objection, noting that amendments to the information are permitted up to the point the case is submitted to the jury. After trial, Coston was convicted on all counts and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, Coston argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the State to amend the information shortly before trial. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the amendment did not change the nature or degree of the offenses, as it merely added counts of the same offense, and that Coston was not unfairly surprised or prejudiced by the amendment. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, finding no prejudicial error. View "COSTON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Mark Howerton was convicted in 2010 of computer child pornography and three counts of internet stalking of a child, based on offenses committed in 2009. He received a total prison sentence of 24 years, with some sentences suspended. Howerton was paroled in 2017 but returned to prison in 2020 for a parole violation. He was denied parole in 2022 for two years and again in 2024 for another two years. Howerton filed a petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus, alleging that the chairperson of the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board, Lona McCastlain, acted without legal authority in denying his parole, arguing that the denial was based on statutes applied ex post facto and an unauthorized “detriment to the community” rationale.The Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Division, granted McCastlain’s motion to dismiss Howerton’s petition. The court found that Howerton failed to state sufficient facts to support his claims, noting that Arkansas parole statutes and regulations do not create a protectable liberty interest in discretionary parole decisions, and that parole eligibility is determined by the law in effect at the time the crime was committed. The court also found that Howerton did not demonstrate that the incorrect statute was applied or that the Board’s regulations were violated.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the dismissal for abuse of discretion and for the existence of a justiciable controversy. The court held that Howerton failed to present sufficient facts to establish that McCastlain acted outside her authority or violated applicable statutes or regulations. The court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal, concluding that Howerton’s allegations were insufficient to warrant declaratory or mandamus relief. View "HOWERTON v. MCCASTLAIN" on Justia Law

A man was convicted by a jury in Greene County, Arkansas, of five counts of rape involving a minor victim. The case involved evidence obtained from the defendant’s cell phone, including pornographic images, and testimony from the victim describing multiple incidents of sexual abuse, the use of sex toys, and exposure to child pornography. The victim’s account was corroborated by physical evidence, DNA analysis, and expert testimony from a sexual assault nurse examiner. The defendant denied the allegations, attributing the accusations to the victim’s desire to avoid blame for unrelated misconduct.After the conviction, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding error in the admission of certain evidence. The State petitioned for review, which the Supreme Court of Arkansas granted, thereby reviewing the case as if it had been originally filed there. The defendant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from his cell phone, claiming the search warrant was facially deficient and lacked probable cause, and that the court improperly allowed cross-examination about prior orders of protection involving his girlfriend, in violation of evidentiary rules.The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, finding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers acted in good faith and the warrant was not so deficient as to preclude reliance on it. The court also found that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting evidence about the orders of protection, but concluded that the error was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the prejudicial effect was slight. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the convictions and vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals. View "VASQUEZ v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with capital murder following the shooting death of Zyrique “Zack” Geans in Stuttgart, Arkansas, on February 13, 2019. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, after an earlier altercation with the victim, discharged a firearm from a vehicle toward the victim, who was under a carport at his residence, resulting in the victim’s death. Multiple eyewitnesses testified that the appellant fired a handgun from a purple Camaro convertible toward the residence. Physical evidence, including shell casings and gunshot residue, supported the eyewitness accounts. The defense argued justification, claiming the appellant fired only after being shot at, and presented testimony to support this theory.The Arkansas County Circuit Court held a jury trial in January 2023. The jury found the appellant guilty of capital murder and of using a firearm to commit the offense. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole, plus a fifteen-year firearm enhancement. The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the voluntariness of his in-custody statements, and the completeness of the record for appellate review. The circuit court denied these motions, including the motion to suppress statements, finding that the appellant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of the motion to suppress, and the adequacy of the record. The court held that substantial evidence supported the conviction, that the appellant’s waiver of Miranda rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that the supplemented record was sufficient for appellate review. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no prejudicial error in the proceedings. View "HUDSON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law