Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Progress for Cane Hill, a local-option ballot committee, collected enough signatures to propose a local ordinance to make two precincts in Cane Hill "wet." However, Washington County Clerk Becky Lewallen rejected the initiative because 332 of the signatures were collected by paid canvassers who were not Arkansas residents.Progress for Cane Hill challenged the rejection in the Washington County Circuit Court. The circuit court found that the residency requirement in Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-103(a)(6) did not apply to local-option ballot initiatives and ordered Lewallen to certify the initiative's sufficiency. Lewallen appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and focused on statutory interpretation. The court held that the residency requirement for paid canvassers in section 7-9-103(a)(6) does apply to local-option ballot initiatives. The court reasoned that the Local Option Code incorporates the general Election Code, which includes the residency requirement. The court found that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and reversed and remanded the case, ordering that votes on the ballot measure not be counted. View "LEWALLEN v. PROGRESS FOR CANE HILL" on Justia Law

Jeffery McPherson was convicted by a Miller County jury of first-degree murder and tampering with physical evidence. He received consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and twelve years, plus a $12,000 fine. The charges stemmed from the death of his fiancée’s two-month-old son, who was in McPherson’s care while the child’s mother was incarcerated. The child suffered from severe intestinal issues, and McPherson admitted to using a bicycle motion technique to alleviate the child’s pain. However, forensic evidence revealed that the child had multiple rib fractures and a fresh femur fracture, indicating blunt-force trauma.The Miller County Circuit Court found McPherson guilty based on substantial evidence, including the forensic medical examination and McPherson’s own admissions. McPherson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the State failed to prove he knowingly caused the child’s death and suggested that another individual, Jason Uncel, could be responsible. He also contended that his actions were, at worst, reckless rather than intentional. Additionally, McPherson argued that the tampering charge should be reduced, claiming the State did not prove the existence or relevance of the deleted video recordings.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions. The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict, including the forensic evidence and McPherson’s attempts to cover up the crime by deleting surveillance footage. The court found that McPherson’s intent could be inferred from the circumstances and his actions. The court also rejected McPherson’s argument regarding the tampering charge, noting that his admission to deleting the video recordings and the circumstantial evidence were sufficient to support the conviction. The court conducted a Rule 4-3(a) review and found no reversible errors. View "McPherson v. State" on Justia Law

Jabari Smith was convicted of capital murder and a firearm enhancement for the shooting death of fifteen-year-old Siar Grigsby. The incident occurred on February 2, 2022, and Smith was charged on March 11, 2022. During the trial, a surveillance video showed Smith shooting Grigsby multiple times from behind and continuing to shoot after Grigsby fell. Witness Efrem Elliot testified that he drove Smith, Grigsby, and Malik Shorter to Smith's home, where the shooting occurred. Smith claimed he shot Grigsby out of fear for his family's safety after Grigsby threatened him with a gun.The Jefferson County Circuit Court jury found Smith guilty, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fifteen years for the firearm enhancement. Smith appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, improper admission of prejudicial photographs and video, restricted voir dire questioning, and improper cross-examination by the State.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that there was substantial evidence of premeditation, as Smith shot Grigsby multiple times, including after he had fallen. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the photographs and video, as they were relevant and corroborated witness testimony. The court also upheld the trial court's restriction on voir dire questioning about the range of punishment, noting that Smith's mandatory sentence for capital murder was life imprisonment without parole. Lastly, the court found no error in allowing the State to question Smith about discrepancies between his testimony and Elliot's.The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no prejudicial error in the trial court's decisions. View "SMITH v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

David Heileman and Ariel Cahoon were divorced in 2017, with a joint custody agreement for their two children. The agreement allowed Cahoon primary custody and Heileman secondary custody, with a nearly equal division of time. In 2021, Cahoon filed a petition for contempt and modification of the custodial arrangement, seeking full custody. She cited Heileman's out-of-state work, the detrimental effect of the back-and-forth schedule on the children, and his failure to pay child support.The Poinsett County Circuit Court held a hearing where both parties testified. Cahoon argued that the current arrangement was chaotic and detrimental to the children's stability. Heileman testified about his job as a traveling surgical technician and his efforts to maintain his custodial time. The court found insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of joint custody but modified the custodial schedule due to Heileman's work schedule and the children's school needs. The new schedule significantly reduced Heileman's time with the children. The court also found Heileman in contempt for failing to pay child support and deferred sentencing for 90 days to allow him to pay the arrears.Heileman appealed, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision. Heileman then petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the circuit court failed to make the necessary finding of a material change in circumstances to justify modifying the joint custody arrangement. The court emphasized that joint custody is favored in Arkansas and that any modification away from joint custody requires a material change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interest of the child. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The contempt issue was not addressed as the sanctions had not yet been imposed. View "HEILEMAN v. CAHOON" on Justia Law

Bellot Doucoure was convicted of three counts of raping his minor child and sentenced to life in prison. The victim testified that Doucoure raped her approximately twenty times, claiming it was required by his religion. Scientific evidence supported her testimony, with Doucoure’s DNA found on the victim’s bedsheets and the victim’s DNA on Doucoure’s underwear. The victim also testified about receiving text messages from a supposed therapist, who encouraged her to continue having sex with Doucoure. She later realized the therapist was Doucoure himself. Additional testimonies from Courtney Doucoure and Connie Stave corroborated the victim’s disclosures about the abuse.The Benton County Circuit Court, First Division, presided over the trial. The jury found Doucoure guilty on all counts. Doucoure appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of hearsay testimony. He argued that inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and the circumstantial nature of the evidence should have led to a different verdict.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the victim’s testimony alone constituted substantial evidence to support the convictions, as the jury is responsible for resolving inconsistencies and assessing witness credibility. The court also found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting limited hearsay testimony from Connie Stave. The defense had opened the door to this testimony during cross-examination, and the circuit court appropriately limited the scope of Stave’s statements.The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no prejudicial error in the record. View "Doucoure v. State" on Justia Law

Lee Earnest Clarks, 2nd was stopped by police for running a stop sign. During the stop, the officer smelled marijuana and found marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia in the vehicle. A firearm was also found in a passenger’s purse. Clarks was charged with multiple felonies, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of a firearm by a felon. Clarks filed a motion for discovery, including a request to preserve evidence. Upon learning that the State did not preserve video evidence from the stop, Clarks moved to dismiss the charges.The Pulaski County Circuit Court held a hearing where it was revealed that the video evidence was overwritten after 60 days due to standard police procedures. The court granted Clarks’s motion to dismiss, finding that the State’s failure to preserve the evidence amounted to bad faith. The State appealed the decision, arguing that the burden of proof was incorrectly placed on it and that the destruction of evidence was unintentional.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and determined that the appeal was proper for ensuring the correct administration of criminal law. The court clarified the legal standards for destruction-of-evidence cases, referencing Brady v. Maryland, California v. Trombetta, and Arizona v. Youngblood. The court held that the burden of proving a due process violation due to lost or destroyed evidence lies with the defendant. The defendant must show that the evidence had apparent exculpatory value before its destruction and that comparable evidence could not be obtained by other means. Additionally, if the evidence is only potentially useful, the defendant must prove that the State acted in bad faith.The Supreme Court found that the circuit court erred in its application of the law by shifting the burden of proof to the State and by equating unintentional destruction of evidence with bad faith. The court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "STATE OF ARKANSAS v. CLARKS" on Justia Law

Petitioners, Bill Paschall and Arkansans for Patient Access (APA), sought a declaration from the court that the ballot title for the proposed "Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2024" was sufficient and requested that votes for the amendment be counted in the November 5, 2024, general election. The proposed amendment aimed to expand access to medical marijuana and included provisions for legalizing marijuana possession for all purposes if federal law changes. The Secretary of State, John Thurston, and intervenors, Jim Bell and Protect Arkansas Kids (PAK), opposed the petition, arguing that the proposal was insufficient due to misleading language and failure to meet signature requirements.The Secretary of State rejected APA's petition on the grounds that APA did not meet the 90,704 minimum-signature requirement, as affidavits were signed by individuals from Nationwide Ballot Initiative (NBA) rather than APA. PAK argued that the popular name and ballot title were misleading, as they did not inform voters about the amendment's broader implications, including the legalization of recreational marijuana and changes to the Arkansas Constitution unrelated to medical marijuana.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and found that the Secretary of State erred in rejecting the petition based on the signature requirement, as APA's delegation to NBA was permissible under Arkansas law. However, the court agreed with PAK that the popular name and ballot title were misleading. The court held that the proposed amendment's popular name suggested it was limited to medical marijuana, while it also sought to legalize recreational marijuana and amend unrelated constitutional provisions. The ballot title failed to adequately inform voters about these significant changes.The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied the petitioners' request, granted the intervenors' request for relief, and enjoined the Secretary of State from canvassing or certifying any ballots cast for the proposed amendment in the November 5, 2024, general election. View "PASCHALL V. THURSTON" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellants, members of the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners, appealed a decision by the Crittenden County Circuit Court. The appellees, Shirley Brown and Lavonda Taylor, filed a petition seeking to compel the Board to conduct early voting at specific locations for the 2024 General Election. The Board had failed to unanimously approve an early voting site in West Memphis, leading the County Clerk, Paula Brown, to designate the Seventh Street Church of Christ as an early voting site. The appellees also sought to maintain the First Baptist Church as an early voting site, as it had been used in the 2022 General Election.The Crittenden County Circuit Court partially granted the appellees' petition, ordering the Board to conduct early voting at the Church of Christ but denied the request to include the First Baptist Church. The court found that the County Clerk had the authority under Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-418(a)(1)(A) to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it ruled that the statute requiring polling sites to remain the same as the previous general election did not apply to early voting sites.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision with modifications. The Supreme Court agreed that the County Clerk had the authority to designate the Church of Christ as an early voting site. However, it modified the writ of mandamus to clarify that the Board must only comply with its statutory duties regarding early voting conducted by the County Clerk. On cross-appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the First Baptist Church must remain an early voting site for the 2024 General Election, as the Board had not voted to change it from the 2022 General Election. View "Barton v. Brown" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition filed by Jennifer McGill and Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC (CNE) seeking to invalidate a proposed constitutional amendment concerning the Pope County casino license. The petitioners argued that the Arkansas Secretary of State, John Thurston, improperly certified the proposed amendment. They claimed that the number of valid signatures was insufficient and that the popular name and ballot title were misleading. Local Voters in Charge (LVC) and Jim Knight intervened in the case, supporting the proposed amendment.Previously, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted expedited consideration of the petition and allowed the intervention. The court bifurcated the proceedings into two counts: the sufficiency of the signatures and the sufficiency of the popular name and ballot title. A Special Master was appointed to resolve factual disputes regarding the signatures, which were addressed in a separate opinion. This opinion focuses on the challenges to the popular name and ballot title.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the popular name and ballot title certified by the Attorney General. The court held that the popular name and ballot title were sufficient and not misleading. The court found that the ballot title adequately informed voters that any existing casino license in Pope County would be revoked if the amendment passed. The court also rejected arguments that the popular name and ballot title failed to disclose conflicts with federal law or that they misled voters about the amendment's impact on future constitutional amendments.Ultimately, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied the petition, allowing the proposed amendment to remain on the ballot for the November 5, 2024, general election. The court issued its mandate immediately. View "MCGILL V. THURSTON" on Justia Law

Bryan Norris submitted a countywide ballot initiative in Independence County, Arkansas, proposing that all elections be conducted using paper ballots. The County Clerk, Tracey Mitchell, rejected the initiative, claiming the ballot title was misleading. Norris then filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory and injunctive relief in the Independence County Circuit Court, challenging Mitchell's decision. The circuit court found the ballot title and popular name legally sufficient, granted the writ of mandamus, and directed Mitchell to certify the ballot initiative. Mitchell was also enjoined from rejecting the measure.Mitchell appealed the circuit court's decision, arguing that the ballot title was insufficient because it omitted and misstated material information, potentially leading voters to enact an ordinance conflicting with Arkansas law. Specifically, she contended that the ballot title failed to disclose that the proposed ordinance conflicted with state statutes requiring the use of tabulation devices for paper ballots and did not inform voters about the existing legal methods for casting and counting votes.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case, noting that the sufficiency of a ballot title is a matter of law. The court emphasized that a ballot title must provide an impartial summary of the proposed amendment, giving voters a fair understanding of the issues and the scope of the proposed changes. The court found that the ballot title did not need to include every possible consequence or legal argument and that Mitchell's concerns were speculative. The court concluded that Mitchell did not meet her burden of proving the ballot title was insufficient and affirmed the circuit court's order directing Mitchell to certify the measure as sufficient to the county election board. The decision was affirmed, and the mandate was issued immediately. View "MITCHELL V. NORRIS" on Justia Law