Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A fatal motor-vehicle collision occurred on September 23, 2021, when Cody Conboy, an employee of Comfort Systems USA (Arkansas), Inc., crossed the center line while driving from his home to a remote jobsite. The accident resulted in the deaths of Tammy Gardner and five-year-old Christopher Skala, and injuries to three-year-old Xavior Skala. Conboy regularly traveled to various worksites as part of his employment, and his employer provided compensation for travel or per diem. The estates of the decedents and the guardian for the injured child initiated legal action against Comfort Systems and Conboy, alleging both direct and vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.The Independence County Circuit Court consolidated the related cases and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Comfort Systems. The circuit court concluded that the “going-and-coming” rule, which bars liability for accidents occurring during an employee’s commute, should apply not only in workers’ compensation cases but also in tort cases involving employer liability. The circuit court found that Conboy was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and that Comfort Systems had no control over his travel. Consequently, all claims against Comfort Systems were dismissed with prejudice, while claims against Conboy remained pending.The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, and after further appellate proceedings, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case. The Supreme Court held that the going-and-coming rule from workers’ compensation law does not govern tort cases involving respondeat superior liability. Instead, Arkansas courts must apply traditional respondeat superior analysis to determine if an employee was acting within the scope of employment. The Supreme Court further found that summary judgment was improper because reasonable minds could differ as to whether Conboy was acting within the scope of his employment. The court also held it was error to grant summary judgment on direct-liability claims where no such relief was requested. The case was reversed and remanded, and the court of appeals’ opinion vacated. View "SKALA v. COMFORT SYSTEMS USA, INC." on Justia Law

On February 26, 2022, the appellant and another individual arrived at a Conway, Arkansas house where several people had gathered. After an argument broke out between the appellant and a partygoer, the appellant made threats and left. He later returned with his accomplice, both armed, and a gunfight ensued outside the house. One person was fatally wounded after being shot multiple times. During the incident, a third party arrived with his child, and their vehicle was struck by gunfire, with evidence suggesting the child was endangered. Police recovered numerous shell casings at the scene matching the weapons used by both the appellant and his accomplice. The appellant was charged with capital murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and a firearm enhancement.The case was tried before the Faulkner County Circuit Court. A jury convicted the appellant on all counts, and the court imposed a life sentence without parole for capital murder, concurrent five-year sentences for aggravated assault, and a consecutive ten-year sentence for the firearm enhancement. The enhancement for committing the crimes in the presence of a child was dropped by the State. The appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, challenging six evidentiary rulings made during the trial.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case. Applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, the court addressed each evidentiary challenge, including hearsay objections, expert testimony, and use of documents by a witness. The court found no reversible error, determining either that the disputed evidence was admissible under exceptions to hearsay or that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court also concluded that the cumulative-error argument was not preserved for review. After conducting its required review for additional prejudicial error, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the convictions and sentences imposed by the circuit court. View "TATE v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

James Ray Davis pleaded guilty in 2017 to several charges, including commercial and residential burglary. Later, while incarcerated, Davis filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county of his incarceration. In his petition, Davis asserted that his guilty plea was induced by prosecutor deception, ineffective assistance of counsel, and trial court misconduct. He also alleged constitutional and due process violations. The petition included affidavits that were difficult to interpret, and although Davis used a form referencing Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-201, he did not claim actual innocence or request scientific testing.The Jackson County Circuit Court treated Davis’s petition as seeking habeas relief under sections 16-112-101 to -123, since he neither stated a claim under section 16-112-201 nor filed the petition in the county of conviction as required for claims based on new scientific evidence. The circuit court denied Davis’s petition, concluding that he failed to state a cognizable action for the writ to issue. Specifically, the court found that Davis did not provide a sentencing order showing the alleged illegality of his sentence and did not demonstrate either facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of circuit court jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and applied the clearly erroneous standard to the circuit court’s ruling. The court held that Davis failed to establish a basis for habeas relief because he did not show that the judgment was invalid on its face or that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. Without the sentencing order or proof of illegality, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Davis’s petition. View "DAVIS v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

David Scott Taylor owns property near Pinnacle Mountain in Pulaski County, Arkansas, adjacent to land owned and developed by Rick Ferguson and several related entities. Ferguson’s property, which is being developed into the Paradise Valley subdivision, allegedly causes increased stormwater runoff that floods Taylor’s land. Taylor claims that the development’s clearing of vegetation, paving, and planned drainage ditch will exacerbate flooding, potentially increasing it by up to 400 percent. Taylor filed suit in Pulaski County Circuit Court, seeking damages and equitable relief to require Ferguson to construct a larger storm-water detention pond to mitigate the flooding.After Taylor filed his complaint, Ferguson moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims involved matters assigned to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the county court under article 7, section 28 of the Arkansas Constitution, specifically relating to county roads, internal improvement, and local concerns. Taylor amended his complaint to remove references to county roads and public nuisance, focusing solely on private flooding. The circuit court initially denied Ferguson’s motion but later reconsidered and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that the dispute fell within the county court’s exclusive original jurisdiction. Ferguson then nonsuited his counterclaim, and Taylor appealed.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the circuit court’s dismissal de novo. It held that Taylor’s claims do not involve county roads, internal improvement, or local concerns as those terms are used in article 7, section 28. The court found that the dispute is a private residential matter over flooding, not a public infrastructure or county regulatory issue, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "TAYLOR V. FERGUSON" on Justia Law

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