Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On January 14, 2023, a motorist, Arva Wilkerson, called 911 to report a speeding vehicle. After following the car and reciting its license plate, Wilkerson stated, “he is on to me.” Dylan Collins, the driver, noticed Wilkerson following him, pulled over, and Wilkerson stopped behind him. Without any communication, Collins exited his car, approached Wilkerson’s truck with a pistol, and fired thirteen shots into the vehicle. Collins then left the scene, destroyed the firearm, and did not contact authorities. Wilkerson died from his injuries the next day. Witnesses testified that Collins immediately fired upon Wilkerson without interaction and that Wilkerson’s gun was found later in a closed console.The case was tried in the Faulkner County Circuit Court. At trial, Collins claimed self-defense, stating he believed Wilkerson was reaching for a gun. However, evidence showed Collins did not see a weapon and did not speak to Wilkerson. Multiple witnesses corroborated that Wilkerson did not display a gun. The defense moved for a directed verdict, arguing the State failed to disprove justification, but the circuit court denied the motion, leaving the question for the jury. The jury convicted Collins of capital murder and firearm enhancement.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, Collins challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding justification and the circuit court’s restriction of voir dire about burdens of proof. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Collins was not justified in using deadly force, as he was the initial aggressor and did not reasonably believe Wilkerson posed an imminent threat. The court also found no abuse of discretion in limiting voir dire to the relevant burden of proof. The judgment was affirmed. View "COLLINS v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who, shortly after being released from prison, was staying at his grandmother’s house and had a contentious relationship with her husband. On the day of the incident, after an argument, he stabbed his grandmother’s husband more than twenty-five times in the kitchen, dragged the body outside, and threatened bystanders while holding the murder weapon. Forensic evidence indicated a violent struggle, with numerous defensive wounds on the victim. The defendant claimed self-defense, stating that the victim attacked him first, but his account was inconsistent and uncorroborated.The Desha County Circuit Court presided over the trial. Before trial, the defendant sought to exclude testimony from a neighbor who said the defendant had expressed a desire to harm the victim and burn down the house if his grandmother was not present. The court found this statement relevant to the defendant’s intent and admitted it. At trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing only that the State had not proven he acted purposely, but did not specifically argue that the State failed to disprove self-defense. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case. It held that the sufficiency challenge regarding self-defense was not preserved for appeal because the defendant did not raise it with specificity at trial, as required by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant purposely killed the victim, based on the nature and extent of the wounds and the defendant’s conduct. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the neighbor’s testimony, as it was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The conviction was affirmed. View "MCDANIELS v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Timothy Clevenger was convicted of first-degree murder following the death of his wife, Margaret, who was found unresponsive and covered in blood in their home. The investigation revealed that Margaret had suffered multiple blunt-force head injuries, with evidence of a violent struggle and attempted cleanup at the scene. Clevenger was found with bloodstained clothing and injuries consistent with striking a person or object. His statements to police about his whereabouts and actions on the morning of the murder were contradicted by security footage and other evidence. The couple’s marriage was strained, and Clevenger was the sole beneficiary of a significant life insurance policy on Margaret.The Pulaski County Circuit Court presided over Clevenger’s trial. Clevenger moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his home, arguing that the search warrant was improperly issued and that the search violated procedural rules regarding nighttime searches. The circuit court denied the motion, finding no evidence of judicial bias and determining that the search complied with legal requirements. At trial, Clevenger also objected to the admission of certain evidence and witness testimony, but the court overruled or limited these objections, often noting that some arguments were not properly preserved.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case on appeal. The court held that substantial evidence supported the conviction, including forensic evidence, inconsistencies in Clevenger’s statements, evidence of motive, and his attempt to evade arrest. The court found no error in the denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the warrant was properly issued and the search was lawfully conducted. The court also determined that Clevenger’s evidentiary and procedural objections were either without merit or not preserved for review. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "Clevenger v. State" on Justia Law

In October 2016, BAS, LLC purchased commercial property in Paragould, Arkansas, listing its mailing address as 3735 Winford Drive, Tarzana, California. BAS failed to pay property taxes for 2017 and 2018, leading the Greene County Clerk to certify the property to the Commissioner of State Lands for nonpayment. The Commissioner sent a notice of the upcoming tax sale to the Tarzana address via certified mail in August 2021, but did not receive a physical return receipt. USPS tracking data indicated the notice was delivered. In June 2022, the Commissioner sent another notice to the Paragould property, which was returned undelivered. The property was sold in August 2022, and BAS filed a lawsuit contesting the sale, alleging due process violations and unlawful taking.The Greene County Circuit Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Commissioner violated BAS’s due process rights, thus preventing a determination on sovereign immunity. The Commissioner appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and concluded that the Commissioner’s efforts to notify BAS were constitutionally sufficient. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and determined that the Commissioner’s actions met due process requirements. The court held that BAS failed to allege an illegal or unconstitutional act to overcome sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. View "Land v. BAS, LLC" on Justia Law

The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a complaint against the Governor of Arkansas, the Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Corrections, and the Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Acts 185 and 659 of 2023. The Board argued that these acts unlawfully transferred its power to manage the Department of Corrections to the Governor and the Secretary, in violation of amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution. The Board sought a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction to prevent the enforcement of the challenged legislation.The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a preliminary injunction, finding that the Board demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also denied motions to dismiss the Board’s complaint and to disqualify the Board’s special counsel. The appellants, including the Governor and the Secretary, appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing that the Board failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and denied the appellants' motion to remand with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss as moot. The court found that the dispute was not moot despite the firing of Secretary Profiri, as the Board's complaint concerned the constitutionality of the legislation, not the individual holding the Secretary position. The court also dismissed the appellants' motion to disqualify the Board’s counsel, as it was outside the scope of interlocutory review.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated irreparable harm in the absence of the preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that the dispute over the Board’s authority would continue until the constitutionality of the challenged legislation was resolved. View "Sanders v. Arkansas Board of Corrections" on Justia Law

Raymond Lovett was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fifteen-year firearm enhancement by a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury. The conviction stemmed from the shooting death of Leighton Whitfield at St. Vincent North Hospital in Sherwood. Lovett shot Whitfield multiple times after a confrontation. Lovett then turned himself in at a nearby gas station. Lovett testified that he shot Whitfield because he felt threatened when Whitfield stood up after Lovett had shown him a gun.The Pulaski County Circuit Court jury found Lovett guilty of capital murder and imposed the sentence. Lovett appealed, challenging the prosecution’s statements during closing arguments. He argued that the prosecutor’s comments violated the “golden rule” by asking jurors to put themselves in the position of a party or victim. However, Lovett did not obtain a ruling on this objection at trial, nor did he make the golden-rule argument below, leading the court to decline to consider this argument on appeal. Lovett also argued that the circuit court’s failure to give an admonition or curative instruction constituted an abuse of discretion, but the court found no manifest abuse of discretion.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Lovett’s arguments regarding the prosecutor’s statements were not preserved for review because he failed to obtain a ruling at trial and did not develop the arguments below. The court also found no reversible error upon reviewing the record for all errors prejudicial to Lovett. View "Lovett v. State" on Justia Law

A twelve-year-old child disclosed to a school counselor that she had been communicating with a twenty-six-year-old man, later identified as Eric Overton, via Snapchat. The child’s mother confirmed the communication, obtained evidence from the phone, and contacted law enforcement. The investigation revealed that Overton and the child had exchanged nude photographs and sexually explicit messages, and that Overton had picked up the child from her home on three occasions, during which they engaged in sexual intercourse. The child provided detailed testimony at trial regarding these encounters.The Hot Spring County Circuit Court presided over the trial, during which Overton objected to the prosecutor’s voir dire questioning about whether a conviction could be based on the testimony of a single credible witness. The court overruled the objection and denied a subsequent motion for mistrial, emphasizing that the jury would be instructed on the law at the end of the case. The jury was later instructed on the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury found Overton guilty of rape and internet stalking of a child, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the rape conviction and whether the circuit court erred in its handling of voir dire and jury instructions. The court held that the evidence, including the victim’s testimony, was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no prejudicial error in the proceedings. View "Overton v. State" on Justia Law

Clarence Turnbo was convicted of rape by a Pulaski County jury, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. Turnbo subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. He argued that his trial counsel failed in several areas, including impeaching a witness, challenging DNA evidence, seeking expert testimony, objecting to the prosecutor's opening statement, calling him to testify, investigating the victim's prior sexual history, and "federalizing" his arguments.The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied Turnbo's petition, finding that he did not demonstrate entitlement to relief. The court noted that many of Turnbo's claims were either conclusory or addressed strategic decisions by counsel, which are generally not grounds for postconviction relief. The court also found that Turnbo failed to show prejudice resulting from his counsel's actions, as required under the Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Turnbo did not meet the burden of proving that his counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. The court also noted that many of Turnbo's arguments were raised for the first time on appeal and could not be considered. Additionally, the court found that the trial court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing, as the record conclusively showed that Turnbo was not entitled to relief.In conclusion, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Turnbo's petition for postconviction relief, holding that he failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel and was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. View "Turnbo v. State" on Justia Law

Zachary Oxley and Tiffani Davis are the natural parents of MC1, born in June 2011. They were never married and had a brief relationship. After their separation, Davis had another child, MC2, with an unknown father and later married Patrick Davis. In 2016, during their divorce proceedings, Larry Lumpkins intervened, seeking custody of MC1 and MC2, claiming in loco parentis status. The court granted Lumpkins temporary custody, and Oxley later intervened to establish paternity of MC1, which was confirmed through DNA testing.The Lonoke County Circuit Court awarded custody of MC1 and MC2 to Lumpkins in 2018, granting Oxley visitation rights. Oxley did not appeal this initial custody order. In 2020, Oxley filed a petition to modify custody, alleging Lumpkins failed to comply with the visitation schedule and neglected MC1’s hygiene and care. The circuit court held a hearing in 2021, where Oxley presented evidence of Lumpkins’s neglect and obstruction of visitation. Despite expressing concerns, the court denied Oxley’s petition, citing the ad litem’s recommendation to keep MC1 and MC2 together and reinstated visitation for Oxley.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and found that the circuit court erred by not applying the presumption in favor of Oxley as MC1’s fit, natural parent. The court held that a fit, natural parent is entitled to custody unless proven unfit, which was not established in this case. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision, remanded with instructions to award Oxley sole primary custody of MC1, and vacated the court of appeals opinion. The mandate was issued immediately to facilitate MC1’s transition to Oxley’s custody. View "OXLEY v. LUMPKINS" on Justia Law

Terry Break was convicted in 2021 of multiple child sexual abuse offenses, including rape, second-degree sexual assault, and sexual indecency with a child, involving three minor victims. He received six life sentences plus 488 years in prison and $425,000 in fines. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Break then filed a Rule 37 petition for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds.The Boone County Circuit Court denied Break's petition. The court found that the State had provided sufficient evidence of "sexual gratification or desire" for the offenses, and thus, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge this element. The court also found that the prosecutor's comment during closing arguments, referring to Break as a "proven liar," was based on Break's own admissions and was not improper. Additionally, the court determined that the prosecutor's opening statement did not shift the burden of proof, as it referred to Break's demeanor during a recorded interview rather than his silence at trial. Lastly, the court acknowledged that the prosecutor's biblical reference during closing arguments was improper but concluded that Break failed to show that trial counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that Break failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that any alleged deficiencies prejudiced the outcome of his trial. The court emphasized that Break did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of ineffective assistance and that the decisions made by his trial counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional judgment. View "BREAK v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law