Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the interlocutory order of the circuit court granting a preliminary injunction enjoining Kristina Gulley from exercising any powers as a justice of the peace or participating in the Pulaski County Quorum Court or its committees as a justice of the peace, holding that there was no error. Gulley was elected justice of the peace for District 10 in Pulaski County in 2020 and filed for reelection in 2022. Thereafter, voters filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment alleging that Gulley was ineligible to be a candidate for reelection because she had twice been convicted of hot-check charges. The circuit court granted the petition and ordered the board of election commissioners not to certify Gulley as a candidate. Appellees later brought this petition pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-118-105 seeking Gulley's removal from office and the return of salary and benefits. The motion was converted to a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the circuit court granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) res judicata did not bar Appellees' motion to remove Gulley from office; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in granting a preliminary injunction. View "Gulley v. State ex rel. Jegley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court convicting Appellant of the rape of a minor child and sentencing him as a habitual offender to life imprisonment, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Appellant argued that substantial evidence did not support his conviction and that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's rape conviction was supported by substantial evidence; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's continuance motion; and (3) under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(a), no prejudicial error was found. View "McCauley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and the denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that there was no error.After Defendant was convicted he filed a motion to stay briefing and reinvest jurisdiction with the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court granted the motion. An amended sentencing order was subsequently filed reducing Defendant's conviction to murder in the second degree and his sentence to twenty years. After a hearing on Defendant's coram nobis petition, the circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claims of trial error were unavailing; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's petition for writ of error coram nobis. View "Bragg v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder and sentencing him to life plus an additional term of imprisonment as a result of sentencing enhancements, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting an officer’s cell phone recordings of a surveillance video from a store; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a new trial based upon jury misconduct; and (4) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were not preserved for appeal. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of capital murder and sentence of life imprisonment without parole, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury with the model verdict form on dispute accomplice status was reversible error under the third and fourth exceptions enumerated in Wicks v. State, 606 S.W.2d 366 (Ark. 1980). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his property; and (2) neither Wicks exception to the objection requirement applied under the circumstances of this case. View "Nowell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus or other supervisory writ, granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and its director (collectively, AGFC) and dismissing Petitioner's complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, holding that there was no error.Petitioner brought this complaint seeking a declaration that holders of an Enhanced Concealed Carry License (ECCL) may carry concealed firearms in AGFC buildings and facilities, a declaration that AGFC illegally refused to permit his entrance, and an injunction prohibiting AGFC from denying ECCL holders entrance into AGFC buildings with firearms. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied Petitioner's motion for summary judgment and granted AGFC's motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "Corbitt v. Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n" on Justia Law

In this case presenting four questions of law concerning the constitutionality of Act 1108 of 2021, which amended section 18-50-116 of the Arkansas Statutory Foreclosure Act, the Supreme Court held that Act 1108 cannot apply retroactively to a mortgagor whose claim has vested and declined to answer the remaining certified questions.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Act 1108 was unconstitutional (1) because it applies retroactively; (2) because the term “substantially comply” in section 2(d)(2)(D) is void for vagueness; (3) because it deletes Section 2(d)(2)(C)(ii); or (4) for any other reason the Court may find. The Supreme Court held that Act 1108 cannot apply retroactively to mortgagors with pending claims and declined answer the remainder of the certified question because the answer would not be dispositive of any issue between the parties. View "Alpe v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied this petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to challenge the validity of a decision of the circuit court ordering attorney Helen Grinder to refund her client William Campbell $10,000 as a condition as her withdrawal, holding that Grinder had an adequate alternate remedy available.Grinder charged $10,000 to represent Campbell in an ex parte petition for a change in custody. Campbell prevailed and then fired Grinder. Grinder sought formally to withdraw as Campbell's counsel, but Campbell opposed the withdrawal on the grounds that Grinder retained unearned fees. The circuit court subsequently issued an order granting Grinder's motion to withdraw on the condition that she refund $10,000 of allegedly unearned fees to Campbell. Grinder filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and sought a stay. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that there was an adequate remedy other than a writ of certiorari for her to challenge the circuit court's fee adjudication. View "Grinder v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's illegal exaction complaint with prejudice under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to allege facts upon which relief can be granted, holding that the circuit court erred.Appellant, a taxpayer, filed a complaint against Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc. (PFH), a provider of healthcare services, alleging that a significant portion of the funds PFH received from the State between 2010 and 2017 were acquired using unlawful means. The circuit court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Appellant did not allege any wrongdoing on the State's part. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a plaintiff is not required to allege wrongful state action in every case in order to state a claim for a "public funds" illegal exaction. View "Parsons v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court admitting two 911 calls reporting a shooting and a dash cam video containing statements from an eyewitness during Defendant's criminal trial, holding that any error was harmless.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree battery, and other crimes. After he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fifteen years, Defendant filed a motion for a mistrial, which was deemed denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly ruled that the statements from the 911 calls were nontestimonial and thus admissible; (2) the circuit court erred in admitting the dash cam video, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) Defendant's final two arguments were not preserved for appellate review. View "McNeil-Lewis v. State" on Justia Law