Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerns William Coston, who was accused of sexually abusing a minor over several years, beginning when the victim was four years old. The abuse included multiple acts of rape, the introduction of controlled substances, and sexually grooming the child. Initially, Coston was charged with three counts of rape, but the State later amended the charges to include a total of ten counts of rape, one count of introduction of a controlled substance into the body of another person, and one count of sexually grooming a child. The evidence supporting these charges had been available to the defense throughout the discovery process.The Garland County Circuit Court presided over Coston’s jury trial in March 2024. Prior to trial, the State amended the criminal information to add the additional charges. Coston objected to the timing and number of the new charges, arguing that the amendment was arbitrary and created confusion, but he acknowledged that the evidence supporting the charges had been disclosed from the outset. He did not move to strike the amendment or request a continuance. The circuit court overruled his objection, noting that amendments to the information are permitted up to the point the case is submitted to the jury. After trial, Coston was convicted on all counts and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, Coston argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the State to amend the information shortly before trial. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the amendment did not change the nature or degree of the offenses, as it merely added counts of the same offense, and that Coston was not unfairly surprised or prejudiced by the amendment. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, finding no prejudicial error. View "COSTON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Mark Howerton was convicted in 2010 of computer child pornography and three counts of internet stalking of a child, based on offenses committed in 2009. He received a total prison sentence of 24 years, with some sentences suspended. Howerton was paroled in 2017 but returned to prison in 2020 for a parole violation. He was denied parole in 2022 for two years and again in 2024 for another two years. Howerton filed a petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus, alleging that the chairperson of the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board, Lona McCastlain, acted without legal authority in denying his parole, arguing that the denial was based on statutes applied ex post facto and an unauthorized “detriment to the community” rationale.The Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Division, granted McCastlain’s motion to dismiss Howerton’s petition. The court found that Howerton failed to state sufficient facts to support his claims, noting that Arkansas parole statutes and regulations do not create a protectable liberty interest in discretionary parole decisions, and that parole eligibility is determined by the law in effect at the time the crime was committed. The court also found that Howerton did not demonstrate that the incorrect statute was applied or that the Board’s regulations were violated.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the dismissal for abuse of discretion and for the existence of a justiciable controversy. The court held that Howerton failed to present sufficient facts to establish that McCastlain acted outside her authority or violated applicable statutes or regulations. The court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal, concluding that Howerton’s allegations were insufficient to warrant declaratory or mandamus relief. View "HOWERTON v. MCCASTLAIN" on Justia Law

A man was convicted by a jury in Greene County, Arkansas, of five counts of rape involving a minor victim. The case involved evidence obtained from the defendant’s cell phone, including pornographic images, and testimony from the victim describing multiple incidents of sexual abuse, the use of sex toys, and exposure to child pornography. The victim’s account was corroborated by physical evidence, DNA analysis, and expert testimony from a sexual assault nurse examiner. The defendant denied the allegations, attributing the accusations to the victim’s desire to avoid blame for unrelated misconduct.After the conviction, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding error in the admission of certain evidence. The State petitioned for review, which the Supreme Court of Arkansas granted, thereby reviewing the case as if it had been originally filed there. The defendant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from his cell phone, claiming the search warrant was facially deficient and lacked probable cause, and that the court improperly allowed cross-examination about prior orders of protection involving his girlfriend, in violation of evidentiary rules.The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, finding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers acted in good faith and the warrant was not so deficient as to preclude reliance on it. The court also found that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting evidence about the orders of protection, but concluded that the error was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the prejudicial effect was slight. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the convictions and vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals. View "VASQUEZ v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with capital murder following the shooting death of Zyrique “Zack” Geans in Stuttgart, Arkansas, on February 13, 2019. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, after an earlier altercation with the victim, discharged a firearm from a vehicle toward the victim, who was under a carport at his residence, resulting in the victim’s death. Multiple eyewitnesses testified that the appellant fired a handgun from a purple Camaro convertible toward the residence. Physical evidence, including shell casings and gunshot residue, supported the eyewitness accounts. The defense argued justification, claiming the appellant fired only after being shot at, and presented testimony to support this theory.The Arkansas County Circuit Court held a jury trial in January 2023. The jury found the appellant guilty of capital murder and of using a firearm to commit the offense. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole, plus a fifteen-year firearm enhancement. The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the voluntariness of his in-custody statements, and the completeness of the record for appellate review. The circuit court denied these motions, including the motion to suppress statements, finding that the appellant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of the motion to suppress, and the adequacy of the record. The court held that substantial evidence supported the conviction, that the appellant’s waiver of Miranda rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that the supplemented record was sufficient for appellate review. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no prejudicial error in the proceedings. View "HUDSON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

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