Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Arkansas Supreme Court
by
After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with two girls under the age of fourteen. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. After Petitioner unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, Petitioner filed a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging claims pertaining to inconsistent statements made by the victims. The petition was denied. Petitioner then filed this second coram-nobis petition, repeating the claims for relief alleged in the first petition. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that, as with the original petition, Petitioner failed to state a ground for the writ to issue. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant sought relief in coram-nobis proceedings and in a habeas-corpus proceeding, without success. Appellant later filed this instant habeas-corpus proceeding, contending that the original judgment-and-commitment order was void and that the trial court did not have the authority after trial to amend the judgment-and-commitment order. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition where Appellant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. View "Rayford v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of the rape of a four-year-old girl and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. The Supreme court affirmed. Petitioner later filed a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland by not giving more advance notice of the child victim’s medical reports pertaining to her having tested positive for sexually transmitted diseases. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to raise any claim that would support issuance of the writ. View "Lamar v. State" on Justia Law

by
Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion for directed verdict on the rape charges, as substantial evidence supported Defendant’s convictions; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in conducting voir dire, and the jury was instructed with a correct statement of the State’s burden; and (3) the circuit court did not err by admitting the testimony of Appellant’s grandson, niece, and nephew regarding their allegations of Appellant’s prior sexual acts with them pursuant to the pedophile exception to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b). View "Jeffries v. State" on Justia Law

by
After Decedent died in 2010, Appellee, Decedent’s wife, filed a complaint seeking to have a Will and Trust Decedent executed in 2009 set aside on grounds of incapacity and undue influence, or alternatively, to elect to take against the Will. The circuit court concluded (1) Appellee’s election take against the Will of Decedent was valid; and (2) Decedent’s intent in creating the Trust was to deprive Appellee of her elective share in his Estate, and therefore, the Trust assets would be included as part of the Estate for the limited purpose of calculating Appellee’s elective share. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) including the assets of the Trust in Decedent’s estate; (2) finding that Decedent intended to defraud Appellee of her statutory rights to his property; and (3) finding that when a settlor creates an inter vivos revocable trust with the intent to deprive his or her surviving spouse of marital rights to property, then the trust assets will be included in the settlor probate estate for the limited purpose of calculating the elective share. View "In re Estate of Thompson" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, alleging that he was entitled to DNA, blood-type, and ballistic testing of items discovered during the investigation of the crime and introduced into evidence at trial. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition, as Appellant failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness, and none of the other claims raised by Appellant were grounds for relief under Act 1780. View "Ferrell v. State" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated residential burglary, first-degree battery committed in the presence of a child, and having employed a firearm in the aggravated burglary. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and mooted the motion, holding that Appellant’s counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance at trial. View "Caery v. State" on Justia Law

by
Doralee Chandler, a registered voter, filed an amended petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus and for declaratory judgment, alleging that Judge Harrison G. Foster II was not a qualified or eligible candidate for circuit judge because he was not a “licensed attorney” for the constitutionally mandated six-year time period preceding the assumption of the office. The circuit court denied Chandler’s petition and granted Foster’s third-party complaint, determining (1) Foster was not “unlicensed” pursuant to Rule VII(C) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar despite his failure to timely pay his licensing fee four of the six consecutive years prior to the time for taking office, if elected; (2) the suspension of Foster’s license to practice law due to Foster’s failure to timely renew his licensing fee violated his due process rights; and (3) Rule VII(C) was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in determining that Foster was not “unlicensed” pursuant to Rule VII and in finding that he was qualified to seek the position of circuit judge; and (2) Rule VII(C) is unconstitutional in that it provides for an automatic suspension of a lawyer’s license without procedural due process. View "Chandler v. Martin" on Justia Law

by
John Kelly petitioned the circuit court for issuance of a writ of mandamus and for declaratory judgment, asserting that Judge Timothy Fox was ineligible to be a candidate for the position of circuit judge in the election for the judgeship scheduled to be conducted on May 20, 2014 because he was delinquent in the payment of his licensing fee in 2013, and therefore, he was not a “licensed attorney” for the six years immediately preceding the date of assuming office, as constitutionally mandated. The circuit court denied relief, finding that although Fox had been suspended for being delinquent on his annual license fee, this did not constitute a revocation or termination of his license, and therefore, Fox was an eligible candidate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even though Fox failed to pay his annual license fee for forty-five days in 2013, he remained a licensed attorney during the period of delinquency because his license was not terminated and his name was not removed from the list of licensed attorneys; and (2) therefore, the circuit court correctly found that Fox was eligible to be a candidate for the position of circuit judge. View "Kelly v. Martin" on Justia Law

by
The State petitioned for an emergency stay of the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order declaring unconstitutional Act 144 of 1997 and Amendment 83, which banned same-sex marriage. The State asserted that an emergency stay was necessary because circuit clerks were uncertain about whether they were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples while the Supreme Court considered the State’s appeal. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the State’s appeal because there was no final order in this case where the circuit court did not rule on the issue of injunctive relief or on the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. 9-11-208(b). The Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for an emergency stay and granted the motion to dismiss the State’s appeal, holding (1) the court’s order was not final, and therefore, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal; and (2) the circuit court’s order had no effect on Ark. Code Ann. 9-11-208(b) and its prohibition against circuit and county clerks issuing same-sex marriage licenses. View "Smith v. Wright" on Justia Law