Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of rape and two counts of second-degree sexual assault, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for continuance.Defendant was convicted of one count of rape and two counts of second-degree sexual assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for continuance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for continuance. View "Beard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the circuit court's jurisdiction to enter the sentencing order. The circuit court dismissed the habeas action for lack of probable cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it dismissed Defendant's habeas petition for a want of probable cause. View "Jackson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court ordering certain messages to be released because they constituted "public records" pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-101 et seq., holding that the circuit court clearly erred.While Mark Myers was employed as director of the Department of Information Systems (DIS) and Jane Doe was employed by a company that did business with DIS the two developed an intimate personal relationship. After legislative audit disclosed that Myers was under investigation for improperly authorizing $8.2 million for the purchase of equipment from a vendor represented by Doe, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. submitted its FOIA request seeking correpondence between Myers and any representatives of Cisco Systems. Myers filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the Secretary of Transportation and Shared Services from releasing Blackberry Messenger between Myers and Doe. The circuit court concluded that the messages were public records and that the public had a right to their content. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred by not determining whether each individual message met the definition of a "public record." View "Myers v. Fecher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellants' motion to set aside an order probating their father's will and appointing their stepmother, Appellee, as personal representative of their father's estate, holding that sufficient evidence supported the circuit court's decision.In Appellants' motion, Appellants also contested the validity of their father's will and alleged that Appellee unduly influenced their father to dilute Appellants' share of an annuity, payable upon his death. The circuit court determined that the will was valid and that there was no undue influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the circuit court's conclusions. View "Haverstick v. Haverstick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the circuit court's dismissal of Plaintiff's lawsuit against the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission (collectively, State Defendants) and Nature's Herbs and Wellness of Arkansas, LLC, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction.Plaintiff brought this suit alleging violations of the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission's administrative rules, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Plaintiff's equal protection and due process rights. The circuit court concluded that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring its lawsuit and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, holding that because the record was not filed within ninety days from the filing of the first notice of appeal this Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Medicanna, LLC v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed as moot in part the order of the circuit court that disposed of Appellant's motion for the return of seized property, holding that the circuit court correctly held that Appellant's available remedy was a separate action in the civil division of the circuit court or some other remedy.The county sheriff seized thirty-one dogs belonging to Appellant. Appellant was subsequently found guilty of thirty-one misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty. After the circuit court dismissed the charges on speedy-trial grounds Appellant filed a motion to have the dogs returned to her. The circuit court did not order the return of the seized dogs or that Appellant be compensated for the property. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to provide the requested relief; and (2) Appellant's constitutional arguments were moot. View "Siegel v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing Appellant's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that there was no error.Appellant was cited for aiding and abetting two individuals in his boat who were violating Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AG&FC) Regulation N1.03(B)(3)(i)(b), which prohibits using barbed hooks in designated areas, and Regulation 1.00-C. Appellant filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment that the two regulations are unconstitutional because they are in direct conflict with Ark. Code Ann. 35, 8. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, determining that there was no conflict between the AG&FC regulations and the Arkansas Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the regulations in question were not unconstitutional. View "Peveto v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Plaintiff's motion for class-action certification in her suit against Defendant, a car dealership, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the motion.Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant alleging that the "mandatory notice of private or public sale" sent by Defendant repossessing Plaintiff's vehicle and informing her that the vehicle would be sold at a public sale failed to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code and Arkansas law and that the accrued interest rate was unlawful. The circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification without holding a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to certify the class based on the record before it. View "Rivera-Ceren v. Presidential Limousine & Auto Sales, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court convicting Defendant of raping six-year-old M.H. and sentencing him to an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment without parole, holding that there was no prejudicial error.On appeal, Defendant argued that substantial evidence did not support the conviction, the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts under the pedophile exception, and that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting M.H.'s recorded statement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error on the part of the circuit court. View "Warner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se habeas petition filed under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201, holding that a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to section 16-112-210 could not issue on the bases set forth in the petition.Appellant was convicted of commercial burglary and first-degree criminal mischief. Appellant later brought this habeas petition, arguing that he was actually innocent in that the State failed to comply with a discovery request, his right to confront witnesses was violated, and that he was denied notice of certain witnesses to be called by the State. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly determined that Appellant's claims were not cognizable under Act 1780. View "McLaughlin v. State" on Justia Law