Martin v. State

by
The Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s petition to reinvest the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider his petition for writ of error coram nobis or other relief, holding that that Petitioner stated sufficient grounds for the Court to find that his writ may be meritorious.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his coram nobis petition, Petitioner argued that expert hair-comparison testimony at his trial was not meaningfully different from hair-comparison testimony in other cases wherein the Supreme Court reinvested jurisdiction in the circuit court. Therefore, Petitioner argued, this Court should follow that precedent in this case. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that where the expert’s testimony contained one or more of the same errors as those identified in Strawhacker v. State, 500 S.W.3d 716 (Ark. 2016), and Pitts v. State, 501 S.W.3d 803 (Ark. 2016), reinvesting jurisdiction in the circuit court was appropriate. View "Martin v. State" on Justia Law