Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Larry Teeter, Donna Teeter, Amy Teeter Thomas, and Kevin Teeter (collectively, the Teeters) were awarded attorneys’ fees in a judgment arising from a condemnation proceeding. The City of Benton appealed, challenging the circuit court’s award of attorneys’ fees on the grounds that there is no statutory authority for awarding such fees against a municipality in a condemnation proceeding. The Teeters cross-appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying their request for payment of expert-witness fees. The Supreme Court reversed on direct appeal and affirmed on cross-appeal for the reasons stated in City of Benton v. Alcoa Storage Inc., handed down this same date. View "City of Benton v. Teeter" on Justia Law

Alcoa Road Storage, Inc. was awarded attorneys’ fees in a judgment arising from a condemnation proceeding. The City of Benton appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees because there is no statutory authority for awarding such fees against a municipality in a condemnation proceeding. Alcoa cross-appealed, challenging the circuit court’s denial of its request for payment of expert-witness fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in awarding attorneys’ fees because attorneys’ fees are not expressly provided for in Ark. Code Ann. 18-15-307(c); and (2) did not err in finding that expert-witness fees incurred by a landowner to establish the calculation of its just compensation are not “costs occasioned by the assessment” pursuant to section 18-15-307(c). View "City of Benton v. Alcoa Road Storage Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for sexually grooming a child, two counts of sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, and rape. Defendant received life sentences without parole for each of his first-degree sexual assault convictions and for his rape conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court violated his due process rights by allowing an ex post facto application of the habitual offender ranges with regard to his life sentences. The State asserted that Defendant’s ex post facto argument was being raised for the first time on appeal and that it was, therefore, not preserved for review. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed without addressing the merits of Defendant’s argument on appeal. View "Stover v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with numerous misdemeanor offenses. Defendant appealed his convictions in district court to the circuit court, where he stood trial before a jury. After the State rested, Defendant filed a motion for directed verdict, arguing that he had been illegally arrested and that he was entitled to a directed verdict or judgment of acquittal on all charges. The circuit court orally granted Defendant’s motion, excused the jury, and rendered a verdict of not guilty to all charges. The State appealed, arguing that the dismissal of the charges against Defendant was not the appropriate remedy for the illegal arrest. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court’s ruling was not subject to review, and this was not a proper appeal by the State. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was sixteen years old at the time of his arrest, was charged as an adult with robbery and aggravated assault. Defendant was subsequently interviewed by police in connection with an assault of a female. The day after he made a statement, Defendant was charged as an adult with residential burglary, sexual assault in the second degree, and aggravated assault. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the statement he made to police. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant was unable to waive his right to counsel because he was in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Human Services at the time of the interview. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-317(g) and therefore erred in granting Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Sam Perroni filed a complaint with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission and its former executive director (collectively, Commission) against Circuit Judge Tim Fox, alleging that Judge Fox violated several provisions of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct. A three-member panel of the Commission found no probable cause on the complaint filed against Judge Fox and dismissed the complaint. Perroni then filed a second complaint with the Commission alleging that Judge Fox violated several laws and abused the prestige of his office. The Commission dismissed the second judicial complaint. Thereafter, Perroni filed an original complaint, an amended complaint, and a second amended complaint against the Commission. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed Perroni’s appeal, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed Perroni’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because a review of the Commission’s decision lies exclusively with the Supreme Court. View "Perroni v. Sachar" on Justia Law

The circuit court issued a temporary injunction and enjoined the August 9, 2016 special election to amend an existing sales-and-use tax and to issue bonds to finance the construction of a new Mississippi County courthouse, ruling that section 20 of Act 18 of 1901 prohibits a countywide sales-and-use tax to fund the construction of a new county courthouse. Mississippi County appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as moot because (1) the special election enjoined was scheduled for a date that has passed; and (2) this appeal is rendered moot by the Court’s decision in a companion case that resolved the pertinent issues. View "Mississippi County v. City of Osceola" on Justia Law

Resolution No. R-2016-16 referred Ordinance No. O-2016-16, which amended an existing sales-and-use tax ordinance to change the indicated use of revenues, to the voters for approval or rejection in a special election to be held on March 14, 2016. Ordinance No. O-2016-17 called a special election on the question of issuing bonds for the construction of a new courthouse in Blytheville in Mississippi County. Appellees filed a petition seeking a temporary and permanent injunction of the March 14, 2016 special election. The circuit court granted Appellees’ petition for a permanent injunction of the special election, ruling that Act 81 of 1901 invalidated the ordinances and resolution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining a special election on the grounds that Act 81 of 1901 prohibits an ordinance that authorizes the issuance of bonds to finance the new courthouse. View "Mississippi County v. City of Osceola" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery, first-degree robbery, and attempted rape. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas. The trial court ultimately denied the petition as being untimely and otherwise without merit. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and now pending before the Supreme Court was Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, therefore mooting the motion, holding that the trial court did not clearly err when it determined that Appellant’s petition was untimely and not meritorious. View "Hall v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and possession of a firearm by certain persons. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by denying his motion for new trial where members of his family were barred from the courtroom during voir dire and denying his request for a jury instruction on manslaughter and justification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court’s finding that the courtroom was not closed during voir dire was not clearly erroneous, and therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial; and (2) Defendant’s claims of instructional error were not preserved for appellate review. View "Douglas v. State" on Justia Law