Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves an individual who pleaded guilty to residential burglary in 2013 and, approximately ten years later, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 2024. After being sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment for second-degree murder, the Arkansas Division of Correction determined that he was ineligible for parole because of his prior violent felony conviction for residential burglary. He challenged this determination, arguing that his residential burglary conviction should not be classified as a “prior violent felony” under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609, claiming the offense was committed before 2015 and that his sentencing order for second-degree murder did not expressly designate it under the relevant statute.He sought relief in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, petitioning for declaratory judgment, injunction, and mandamus. The circuit court reviewed the statutory language and found that the exception to the violent-felony rule for residential burglaries committed before April 1, 2015, only applies when the sentence for which parole eligibility is sought was imposed before May 24, 2022. Since his second-degree murder sentence was imposed in 2024, the court concluded the exception did not apply. The court denied his petition, holding that the Arkansas Division of Correction did not exceed its legal authority in denying parole eligibility.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the circuit court’s dismissal for abuse of discretion and interpreted the statute de novo. The court held that the statute’s plain language precludes parole eligibility for sentences imposed after May 24, 2022, regardless of when the prior residential burglary was committed or the absence of express designation on the sentencing order. The court also declined to address an ex post facto claim that had not been raised below. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court’s decision. View "NANCE v. ARKANSAS POST-PRISON TRANSFER BOARD" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who, over a period of approximately four months, repeatedly sexually abused his girlfriend’s six-year-old daughter after the child and her mother moved into his home. The abuse included exposing the child to pornography, molesting her, attempting to force her to perform sexual acts, and raping her with a vibrator. The abuse came to light only years later, following an unrelated investigation into the health of the child’s younger brother, which prompted the victim to disclose the abuse to investigators. A subsequent search of the defendant’s home uncovered sexual devices and significant amounts of pornography.In the Faulkner County Circuit Court, the defendant was charged with one count of rape, one count of attempted rape, three counts of second-degree sexual assault, one count of sexually grooming a child, and one count of sexual indecency with a child. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the victim testified in detail about the abuse. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and the circuit court sentenced him to life in prison plus an additional 1,968 months, to run consecutively. The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of his convictions.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case. It held that the defendant’s sufficiency arguments were not properly preserved for appeal because his directed-verdict motions at trial failed to specify which elements of the offenses he challenged. The court also concluded that, even if the arguments had been preserved, the evidence presented at trial—particularly the victim’s testimony and corroborating physical evidence—constituted substantial evidence supporting all convictions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the convictions and the sentence imposed by the lower court. View "SPAAR v. STATE" on Justia Law

Kennedy filed a petition for writ of prohibition in the White County Circuit Court, seeking dismissal of misdemeanor charges pending against him in the Judsonia District Court. He argued that the charges should be dismissed on the grounds of a speedy-trial violation. After filing his petition, Kennedy attempted to serve process on the district court by mailing the summons and complaint. The district court clerk acknowledged receipt of the documents, but Kennedy did not address them to a specific person, nor did he use certified mail with a return receipt requested.The White County Circuit Court reviewed Kennedy’s petition and determined that service of process had not been properly perfected within the 120-day period required by Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). Specifically, the circuit court found that Kennedy did not comply with Rule 4’s requirements: he failed to serve by certified mail addressed to a specific person, did not provide a notarized affidavit of proof of service, and did not include a copy of the summons in the record. As a result, the circuit court dismissed Kennedy’s petition without prejudice.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the appeal. Applying a clearly erroneous standard to the circuit court’s factual findings, the Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that Kennedy’s failure to comply with Rule 4’s service requirements rendered the process defective. The Supreme Court held that because the dismissal was without prejudice and Kennedy could refile his claims, the order was not final or appealable. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. View "KENNEDY v. WHITE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT JUDSONIA" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the distribution of Kirkland Signature alcoholic beverages in Arkansas. Costco, a major retailer with a registered trademark for Kirkland Signature, began selling its branded alcoholic beverages in Arkansas through various manufacturers. These manufacturers registered different Kirkland Signature products, such as Chianti, Pinot Grigio, Sauvignon Blanc, and Strawberry Margarita, with the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Division, each designating one of two different wholesalers: Moon Distributors or Arkansas Wine and Spirits (AWS). The ABC Division later determined that state law required all Kirkland Signature products, regardless of the manufacturer or variety, to be distributed by the same wholesaler.The Director of the ABC Division instructed manufacturers who had designated a different wholesaler from the first registered wholesaler (Moon Distributors) to submit change requests. Mach Flynt and Levecke, two manufacturers who had previously designated AWS, complied but expressed their preference for AWS. The Director held a hearing and granted the change requests, removing AWS as the wholesaler for those products. AWS appealed this administrative action to the ABC Board, which upheld the Director’s decision after its own hearing. AWS then sought review in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board’s decision. The Arkansas Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that under Arkansas Code Annotated section 3-2-403, “brand” refers to the trademark or distinctive name, meaning all Kirkland Signature alcoholic beverages constitute a single brand. Therefore, only one wholesaler may be designated for the brand, and subsequent manufacturers must use the same wholesaler as the first registrant. The court further concluded that the ABC Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The decision was affirmed. View "ARKANSAS WINE AND SPIRITS WHOLESALE, LLC v. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION" on Justia Law

The case involves a man who, over a four-month period in 2020, committed repeated acts of sexual abuse against his girlfriend’s six-year-old daughter, including rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual grooming, and sexual indecency. The abuse came to light in 2023 when an unrelated investigation led the minor victim to disclose the abuse to authorities. A search of the defendant’s home revealed pornography and sexual devices. The victim testified in detail about the abuse at trial, including the use of a vibrator for penetration, attempted digital penetration, repeated molestation, exposure to pornography, and threats made by the defendant to keep her silent.The Faulkner County Circuit Court conducted the trial. The jury convicted the defendant on all seven counts, and the circuit court sentenced him to life imprisonment plus 1,968 months, to be served consecutively. The defendant appealed, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence for each conviction. At trial, the defendant had moved for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution’s case and after all evidence, but his motions did not specify how the evidence was deficient.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the appeal. It held that the defendant’s sufficiency challenges were not preserved for appellate review because his directed-verdict motions lacked the specificity required by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1. Alternatively, the court held that, even if preserved, each conviction was supported by substantial evidence, including the victim’s testimony and physical evidence. The court found no merit in the defendant’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony or her understanding of anatomical terms, concluding that such matters were for the jury to resolve. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "Spaar v. State of Arkansas" on Justia Law

This case arose from a conflict regarding the distribution of Kirkland Signature alcoholic beverages in Arkansas. Under Arkansas’s three-tier system for alcohol distribution, several manufacturers registered different Kirkland Signature products with the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Division, designating different wholesalers. After realizing that multiple wholesalers were assigned to the same brand, the ABC Director directed all Kirkland Signature manufacturers to use the same wholesaler—Moon Distributors—because Moon was the first registered wholesaler for the brand. As a result, the Director granted change requests from two manufacturers (Mach Flynt and Levecke) that switched their designated wholesaler from Arkansas Wine and Spirits (AWS) to Moon Distributors, effectively removing AWS as a wholesaler for those Kirkland Signature products.After the Director’s decision, AWS appealed to the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (Board), which held a hearing and upheld the Director’s ruling. AWS then sought review in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board’s decision. AWS further appealed, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which accepted review.The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that, under Arkansas Code Annotated section 3-2-403, Kirkland Signature constitutes a single brand for distribution purposes, requiring all manufacturers of that brand to designate the same exclusive wholesaler. The court found the statute ambiguous but, after applying rules of statutory construction and reviewing relevant regulations, determined that the legislative intent was to grant wholesalers exclusivity for each brand. The court also held that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the Board’s decision. View "ARKANSAS WINE AND SPIRITS WHOLESALE, LLC v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted by a Faulkner County jury of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The victim, William Holt, was discovered dead in a creek, with evidence including testimony from the appellant’s girlfriend, Jessica Eiss, who stated that the appellant struck Holt with a shotgun during an argument. Eiss testified she remained in the car while the appellant and Holt walked along the creek, and the appellant later returned alone and covered in blood. Investigators found that Holt’s financial affairs connected him to the appellant and Eiss, and evidence included the appellant’s DNA at the crime scene.Following his conviction, which was affirmed on direct appeal by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, the appellant filed petitions under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 in the Faulkner County Circuit Court, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel on several grounds. He also sought a copy of the trial transcript and requested an evidentiary hearing. The circuit court denied the petition, finding that the appellant failed to show counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial under the Strickland v. Washington standard. It made written findings on each claim and did not conduct an evidentiary hearing, concluding the record showed no entitlement to relief.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the circuit court’s decision for clear error and affirmed. The court held that the appellant did not provide sufficient factual substantiation for his ineffective assistance claims, that counsel’s actions were consistent with reasonable professional judgment, and no reasonable probability existed that the outcome would have been different. The court further held that failure to rule on the transcript request waived the issue for appeal and that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary because the record conclusively showed no entitlement to relief. The decision of the Faulkner County Circuit Court was affirmed. View "NOWELL v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

On February 13, 2024, law enforcement found the body of Teangela Tate, who had died from gunshot wounds, near an interstate ramp in North Little Rock, Arkansas. Nearby, two young children were discovered: one deceased (MV1) from blunt-force trauma and environmental exposure, and another (MV2) alive but barely responsive. Evidence at the scene and subsequent investigation linked Willie Leon Mott, Jr. to the victims, including blood and shell casings in Mott’s house and his mother’s car, cell phone records showing travel to and from the crime scene, and DNA tests. Mott was arrested later that day, and during his incarceration, he attempted to have his mother destroy his cell phone.The Pulaski County Circuit Court presided over Mott’s trial. After the prosecution rested, Mott moved for directed verdicts, arguing insufficient evidence for each count and challenging the constitutional validity of a portion of Arkansas’s capital-murder statute. The circuit court denied these motions, finding the evidence sufficient and the statute not vague. Mott rested without presenting witnesses and renewed his motions, which were again denied. He received life sentences for first-degree murder, capital murder, and attempted capital murder.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the appeal. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court determined that the jury’s verdicts were supported by the evidence, including circumstantial evidence and Mott’s actions to conceal his involvement. The court also reaffirmed prior decisions that the statutory language “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” is not unconstitutionally vague. The court affirmed the circuit court’s rulings and Mott’s convictions and sentences. View "MOTT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted of two counts of capital murder and three counts of terroristic threatening, with firearm enhancements, following the deadly shooting of a woman, Sade Turner, and her unborn child. The prosecution’s evidence included testimony that the defendant, along with his brother, drove to a location in Little Rock and fired multiple shots into a car driven by Turner. After the incident, the brothers returned home, and a burned vehicle matching their Jeep was later found. A key piece of evidence involved a phone conversation overheard by Mykell McFee, who later recounted this conversation to law enforcement during an investigation into a separate murder.During the trial in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, McFee was called as a witness but claimed not to recall the details of his statements made during his interview with police. The prosecution played a recording of McFee’s interview over the defendant’s objection, which was based on the argument that McFee’s lack of memory rendered him unavailable for effective cross-examination, thus violating the defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. The Pulaski County Circuit Court overruled the objection, determining that because McFee was present and subject to questioning, there was no confrontation violation.On appeal, the defendant argued to the Supreme Court of Arkansas that the introduction of statements made by another individual, now deceased, within the recorded interview further violated his confrontation rights. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that this particular argument was not preserved for appellate review because it had not been specifically raised at trial. The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that only the objection presented to the trial court was preserved and that the new confrontation argument could not be considered. View "HOLLOWAY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Three subsidiaries of a major poultry company sought refunds for sales taxes paid on the rental of wooden shipping pallets used to deliver their food products. The pallets were rented from a supplier who retains ownership and reuses them after each delivery. The company argued that these pallets were an integral part of the products it sold, claiming that the pallet rentals should be exempt from sales tax under Arkansas’s sales-for-resale exemption, since the pallets were essential in delivering their goods to distributors and retailers.The Department of Finance and Administration denied the refund request. The company then sought review in the Washington County Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. The circuit court concluded that the pallet rentals did not qualify for the sales-for-resale exemption, determining that the pallets were merely a mechanism for delivery and not an integral part of the food products themselves.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the circuit court’s summary judgment de novo. It examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Ark. Code Ann. § 26-52-401(12), and prior case law addressing when items used in manufacturing or delivery become a recognizable integral part of the final product. Applying these standards, the Supreme Court held that the pallets are not an integral part of the chicken or other food products sold, as they do not become part of the product itself but are only used for delivery. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the pallet rentals are not tax-exempt sales for resale and denying the company’s refund claim. View "TYSON CHICKEN, INC. V. HUDSON" on Justia Law