Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael and Susan Gates failed to file individual or corporate tax returns from 2012 to 2017. Mr. Gates pled no contest to one count of failing to file or pay taxes and was ordered to file tax returns for 2015, 2016, and 2017. The Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) audited these returns and found that the Gateses had not properly calculated their tax liability. The Gateses disputed this determination, submitted additional documentation, and DFA adjusted its calculations but still found the Gateses owed taxes. The Gateses continued to dispute the amount, leading to this lawsuit.The Garland County Circuit Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of DFA, but this decision was reversed and remanded by a higher court, which found that DFA had not adequately explained its calculations. On remand, DFA provided detailed evidence of its calculations and disallowances, and the circuit court again granted summary judgment in favor of DFA, noting the Gateses' failure to meaningfully respond to the new evidence.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that DFA had met its prima facie burden by providing detailed evidence of the Gateses' net taxable income and tax liability for 2015, 2016, and 2017. The Gateses failed to meet their burden of proof by not providing specific facts to dispute DFA's calculations. The court concluded that the Gateses' general references to a large volume of documents were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court did not address the Gateses' evidentiary objections, as it found that even considering the disputed documents, summary judgment was still appropriate. View "GATES v. HUDSON" on Justia Law

Dennis Hale was convicted of raping his step-granddaughter, a minor, starting when she was eight years old. The abuse was reported by the victim to her teachers in September 2021, leading to Hale's arrest and charge in Sevier County. Initially represented by a public defender, Hale later had LaTonya Austin appointed as his attorney due to a conflict. Hale filed multiple pro se motions expressing his desire to represent himself, which the court eventually granted after multiple hearings and warnings about the risks of self-representation. Austin was appointed as standby counsel.The Sevier County Circuit Court found Hale guilty of rape based on the victim's detailed testimony and corroborating evidence, including items found during a search of Hale's property. Hale was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, improper waiver of his right to counsel, and error in appointing Austin as standby counsel.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the victim's testimony alone constituted substantial evidence to support the conviction, as corroborated by physical evidence. The court found that Hale knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, having been repeatedly warned of the dangers of self-representation. The court also determined that Hale's conduct at trial did not prevent a fair and orderly exposition of the issues. Finally, the court ruled that there is no constitutional right to choose standby counsel, and Hale had agreed to Austin's appointment.The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Hale's conviction and life sentence, finding no reversible errors in the proceedings. View "Hale v. State" on Justia Law

A student, C.S., transferred from one high school to another within the Fort Smith School District and was rendered ineligible to participate in sports for one year due to the district's policy on intradistrict transfers. This policy contrasts with the immediate eligibility granted to students transferring from outside the district. Vincent Standridge, C.S.'s father, challenged this policy, arguing it violated state law, equal protection, parental rights, and constituted an abuse of power.The Sebastian County Circuit Court dismissed Standridge's complaint, holding that the policy did not violate Arkansas Code subsection 6-18-1904(f), which the court interpreted as applying only to interdistrict transfers. The court also found no constitutional violations or abuse of power.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court's decision in part. The Supreme Court held that Arkansas Code subsection 6-18-1904(f) applies to both intra- and interdistrict transfers, thus prohibiting the district's policy of excluding intradistrict transfer students from sports based solely on their transfer status. The court remanded the case for entry of judgment in Standridge's favor on this statutory claim.However, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Standridge's equal protection, parental rights, and abuse of power claims. The court found that the district's policy had a rational basis and did not violate equal protection. It also held that there is no constitutional right to participate in sports and that the policy did not interfere with parental rights. The court concluded that there is no recognized claim for "abuse of power" in this context.The Supreme Court directed the clerk to issue the mandate immediately to allow C.S. to participate in extracurricular activities before the end of the spring semester. View "STANDRIDGE V. FORT SMITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS" on Justia Law

Kenneth Tilley sought financing from Malvern National Bank (MNB) for a real estate development project in 2009 and 2010, totaling $350,000. Tilley claimed MNB engaged in unfair dealings and sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), tortious interference, negligence, and fraud. The case has been appealed multiple times, with the Arkansas Supreme Court previously reversing decisions related to Tilley's right to a jury trial.Initially, the Garland County Circuit Court struck Tilley's jury demand, which was reversed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. After remand, the circuit court reinstated a bench trial verdict, citing Act 13 of 2018, which was again reversed by the Supreme Court. On the third remand, MNB moved for summary judgment on all claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment, citing Tilley's reduction of collateral as a material alteration of the agreement, a rationale not argued by MNB. Tilley appealed this decision.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the circuit court did not violate the mandate by considering summary judgment. However, it was reversible error for the circuit court to grant summary judgment based on an unargued rationale. The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on Tilley's ADTPA, tortious interference, and negligence claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Tilley's breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud claims, determining that there were disputed material facts that required a jury trial. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Tilley v. Malvern National Bank" on Justia Law

Jonathan and Melissa Brizendine applied to become foster parents in January 2022. After completing their application, a DHS employee conducted a home visit and asked various questions, including about their religious affiliation. The Brizendines, who are non-religious, were also asked to provide additional information on Melissa’s PTSD and medical-marijuana use. On May 19, 2022, DHS denied their foster-parent application. The Brizendines filed a complaint on June 8, 2023, alleging that their application was denied due to their atheism and medical-marijuana use, claiming violations of the Arkansas Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment.The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted the State appellees' motion to dismiss, concluding that the Brizendines' complaint failed to state a claim under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and that the State appellees were entitled to sovereign immunity. The court found that the Brizendines did not plead sufficient facts to show that the State’s actions were illegal or unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the Brizendines' complaint was speculative and did not meet the fact-pleading requirements necessary to overcome sovereign immunity. The court noted that the complaint lacked specific facts to support the claim that DHS denied the application based on religious preferences and medical-marijuana use. Additionally, the complaint did not establish any involvement of Governor Sanders or the Child Welfare Agency Review Board in the application process. Therefore, the State appellees were entitled to sovereign immunity, and the dismissal was affirmed. View "Brizendine v. Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Jeremy Kennedy filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to seek a declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus regarding a decision by the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board (Board). The Board had denied his request for transfer to the Arkansas Division of Community Correction (DCC) and his subsequent request for a six-month reconsideration hearing. Kennedy argued that he was eligible for transfer under Arkansas law and that the Board acted outside its statutory authority by denying his transfer eligibility.The Izard County Circuit Court denied Kennedy’s IFP petition, finding that his claim was a duplicate of a previous lawsuit (case number 33CV-23-123) that was on appeal and another case (33CV-23-57) that he had voluntarily dismissed. The circuit court concluded that Kennedy’s petition did not state a colorable cause of action.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kennedy’s IFP petition. The Supreme Court found that Kennedy’s latest filing did not present a legitimate claim that could be reasonably asserted based on the facts and current law. Therefore, the denial of Kennedy’s IFP petition was upheld. View "Kennedy v. Felts" on Justia Law

Jason Meredith was charged with two counts of capital murder for the shooting deaths of Eric Ogden and Lance Kelloms. The State agreed to waive the death penalty and reduce the charges to first-degree murder in exchange for Meredith's testimony against his co-defendant. Meredith pleaded guilty and received two concurrent life sentences. In 1998, he filed a pro se Rule 37 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and new evidence. He later filed motions to amend his petition, which were denied by the circuit court.The Saline County Circuit Court denied Meredith's motions to amend his petition and ultimately dismissed his Rule 37 petition. The court found that Meredith failed to act with due diligence in seeking relief and that his petition did not comply with the length and formatting requirements. Additionally, the court concluded that the files and records showed Meredith was not entitled to relief, as he failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel was ineffective.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Meredith's motions to amend his petition, as the extreme passage of time and lack of diligence were considered. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the petition based on noncompliance with formatting requirements and the merits of the petition. The court found that Meredith did not sufficiently allege prejudice from his counsel's advice regarding parole eligibility, as he did not claim he would have insisted on going to trial but for the erroneous advice. View "Meredith v. State" on Justia Law

Bryant Smith was convicted in the Jefferson County Circuit Court of two counts of capital murder, one count of attempted capital murder, five counts of first-degree unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, one count of second-degree unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, six counts of terroristic act, and one count of unauthorized use of property to facilitate a crime. These charges stemmed from the deaths of a seventeen-year-old and a twenty-year-old, and the injury of another individual on September 3, 2020. Smith received a life sentence without the possibility of parole.The Jefferson County Circuit Court admitted evidence that Smith possessed a firearm when he was arrested, despite Smith's objections. The court also admonished a witness, Asia Holman, to tell the truth after she gave inconsistent testimony. Smith's motion to strike Holman's testimony was denied. The court ruled that Smith's prior convictions mandated life sentences for the noncapital Class Y felonies. Additionally, the court gave a nonmodel jury instruction that evidence of Smith's flight could be considered as evidence of guilt.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that substantial evidence supported Smith's convictions, including his own confession and corroborating evidence. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of Smith's firearm possession, as it was relevant to the context of his flight and confession. The court also ruled that the circuit court's admonition to Holman was not an improper comment on the evidence and that the court did not err in refusing to strike her testimony. The court upheld the mandatory life sentences based on Smith's criminal history and found the nonmodel jury instruction on flight to be appropriate. Finally, the court determined that there was no error in the sentencing order that required correction. View "SMITH v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Dean Meacham was convicted of three counts of raping his minor daughter, referred to as MV, and was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences. MV disclosed the abuse at age thirteen, leading to Meacham's arrest and subsequent trial. Forensic evidence, including Meacham's semen on MV's bedsheets, supported the charges. Meacham appealed his convictions on four grounds, arguing that the circuit court erred in allowing certain testimonies and denying his motion for a mistrial.The Washington County Circuit Court denied Meacham's motion in limine to exclude evidence of him videoing MV naked in the shower, finding it admissible under the pedophile exception to Rule 404(b). At trial, the court overruled objections to testimonies from Debbee Deckard, a forensic interviewer, and Jessica Faamafi, MV's mother, regarding MV's disclosure of abuse and the video evidence. The court also denied Meacham's motion for a mistrial related to MV's reference to gender-identity issues during her testimony.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decisions. The court held that Deckard's testimony was admissible as nonhearsay to show her course of conduct during the interview. Faamafi's testimony about the video was admissible under the pedophile exception to Rule 404(b), since it demonstrated Meacham's deviate sexual interest in MV. The court found that the probative value of this evidence outweighed any potential prejudice.Regarding the motion for a mistrial, the court determined that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion or in refusing to admonish the jury. The court concluded that MV's brief and incomplete statement about her gender identity did not prejudice Meacham. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Meacham's convictions and sentences. View "Meacham v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Justin Mays, was convicted by a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury of capital murder, two counts of terroristic act, and one count of first-degree battery. The incident occurred on August 21, 2021, when Mays was involved in a shooting on Interstate 40. Mays was identified as the shooter who fired from a black Dodge Charger at a red Ford Mustang, resulting in the death of Kindelyn Roberts and injuries to others. Mays was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the capital murder conviction and additional concurrent sentences for the other charges, including firearm enhancements.The Pulaski County Circuit Court jury found Mays guilty based on testimonies and evidence presented during the trial. Witnesses, including Arkansas State Police officers and other involved parties, provided accounts of the events leading to the shooting. The jury found substantial evidence that Mays was the shooter or an accomplice in the crimes. Mays's appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for each conviction.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case, focusing on whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts. The court held that the testimonies and physical evidence presented at trial were sufficient to affirm Mays's convictions. The court found that the evidence, including ballistic analysis and witness statements, supported the conclusion that Mays fired the shots that resulted in the death of Roberts and injuries to others. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that the circuit court did not err in denying Mays's motions for directed verdict. View "Mays v. State" on Justia Law