Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was charged with one count of battery in the first degree and one count of battery in the second degree. The first jury trial resulted in a mistrial. The circuit court entered a revised scheduling order setting a new trial date. Appellant moved to dismiss alleging a speedy-trial violation. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. After a second trial, the jury convicted Appellant as charged and sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment and fifteen years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss based on an alleged speedy-trial violation, and (2) denying Appellant’s motion to appear at trial in civilian clothing rather than prison garb. View "Hinton v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of the rape of a child. Petitioner was sentenced to 432 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals 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 in the case, claiming that there was prosecutorial misconduct in his trial, that the trial court made some mistake in its rulings, and that the evidence at his trial was not sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to assert a ground for the writ. View "Henington v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder, aggravated robbery, and theft of property. In a separate trial, Appellant was found guilty by a jury of an additional aggravated robbery. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was not properly advised of his Miranda rights when he was interrogated by the police. The circuit court denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not state a ground on which a writ of habeas corpus should be issued and that the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in denying habeas relief without a hearing. View "Davis v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class-action implant against the Arkansas State Police Retirement System (ASPRS) and its Trustees, in their official capacity, on behalf of certain members of the Arkansas State Police Retirement System Deferred Option Plan (DROP). Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Act 404 of 2007, which amended Ark. Code Ann. 24-6-304(b) to provide that that the ASPRS Board of Trustees shall set the interest rate and that the interest rate “shall not be greater than the actuarially assumed investment rate of return for that time,” was unconstitutional as applied to those officers who had elected to enter the DROP prior to the effective date of the Act. The circuit court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on all claims, concluding that retroactive application of Act 404 would impair and disturb contractual vested rights of the officers regarding the interest rate on their DROP contributions. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity. View "Arkansas State Police Retirement System v. Sligh" on Justia Law

Cynthia Frazier, an employee of Baptist Medical Center, was fatally injured when she was struck by a car driven by a fellow Baptist employee as she walked across the Baptist campus. Frazier’s estate sued Baptist for wrongful death. The case was submitted to the jury on interrogatories that asked the jury to both apportion fault and determine damages. The jury found, and the circuit court copied verbatim, the jury’s response to the interrogatories wherein its apportionment of fault and the damages was expressed. In Ford Motor Co. v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that a judgment is not a final order for appellate purposes when it requires interpretation based on information not manifest on the face of the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because there existed on the face of the judgment an ambiguity as to whether the jury had apportioned the fault in making its damages award or whether the apportionment had yet to be done. View "Williamson v. Baptist Health Medical Center" on Justia Law

Teresa Jones filed claims against Truman Arnold Companies (TAC) for negligent supervision, retention, and hiring of a store manager, claiming that she was a victim of sexual assault and harassment while employed by TAC and that she was exposed to this harm due to TAC’s negligence. TAC moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Jones’s sole remedy was through the Workers’ Compensation Act and that the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Act. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that the Act did not provide coverage for Jones’s claims because her alleged injuries amounted to “mental injury or illness,” which is not compensable under workers’ compensation. The TAC subsequently filed a petition for writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the issue of jurisdiction resided exclusively with the Workers’ Compensation Commission because the facts, as presented in the complaint, could not be determined to fall outside the Act as a matter of law. View "Truman Arnold Cos. v. Miller County Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Patricia Adams filed claims against Truman Arnold Companies (TAC) for negligent supervision, retention, and hiring of a store manager, claiming that she was a victim of sexual assault and harassment while employed by TAC and that she was exposed to this harm due to TAC’s negligence. TAC moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Adams’s sole remedy was through the Workers’ Compensation Act and that the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Act. The circuit court denied TAC’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the allegations fell outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. TAC then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to preclude the circuit court from continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Adams’s claims against TAC. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, holding that the writ was warranted for the reasons stated in Truman Arnold Cos. v. Miller County Circuit Court, handed down this same date. View "Truman Arnold Cos. v. Miller County Circuit Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s pro se petition to recall the mandate to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that none of the claims raised by Petitioner fell within the purview of a coram nobis proceeding because they were not errors found in one of the four categories of error. View "Strain v. State" on Justia Law

Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) filed a petition to quiet title in certain property, claiming to be the legal owner of the property after having acquired fee-simple title from the City by quitclaim deed and filed of record. The Stone heirs responded that title should be quieted in them, filed a cross-claim against the City, and asserted a counterclaim for breach of trust. The circuit court granted WRMC’s motion for summary judgment, quieted title in WRMC, dismissed the Stone heirs’ counterclaim, granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the Stone heirs’ cross-claim against the City. The Stone heirs appealed, presenting six allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in favor of WRMC. View "Stone v. Washington Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

The City of Hot Springs passed an ordinance annexing two tracts of property under Ark. Code Ann. 14-40-501. Certain property owners filed a complaint to set aside the annexation, arguing that the statutory scheme authorizing the annexation was unconstitutional and, alternatively, that the annexed area did not fall within the statutory range. The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding that the statute was constitutional and that the annexed area met the requirements set forth in section 14-40-501. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute is constitutional; and (2) the annexed area was properly annexed under the statute. View "Pritchett v. City of Hot Springs" on Justia Law