Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Plaintiff in this medical malpractice case, holding that the circuit court erred by striking and removing Defendants' constitutional right to a jury trial.Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging medical negligence against Defendants. The complaint included a demand for a jury trial. Defendants' answer also contained a demand for a jury trial. The circuit court struck Defendants' request to a jury trial as a sanction for failing to comply with its scheduling order's mediation requirement. After Plaintiff waived her right to a jury trial the matter proceeded to trial as a bench trial. The court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $821,635. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court lacked the authority to divest Defendants of their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. View "Bandy v. Vick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to allow Petitioner to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case, holding that Petitioner's claim failed to establish cause to permit Petitioner to proceed in the trial court with a coram nobis petition.Petitioner was convicted of multiple drug-related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 1848 months' imprisonment. In his coram nobis petition, Petitioner argued that the State committed a Brady violation. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to establish the State committed a Brady violation. View "McKinney v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of rape, holding that there was no prejudicial error below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict; (2) the circuit court did not commit reversible error in denying Defendant's rape-shield motion; (3) any alleged error in the trial court's sustaining a hearsay objection was harmless; (4) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence; (5) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to allow a prior statement into the record; (6) the circuit court did not err in overruling Defendant's objection to the prosecutor's questions to the victim; and (7) there was no prejudicial error in the failure to add a transcription of the jury-selection proceedings in the record. View "McKee v. State" on Justia Law

In this election action, the Supreme Court affirmed as modified the decision of the circuit court dismissing David Tollett's complaint in intervention with prejudice, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in dismissing Tollett's complaint in invention because of his failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure.Lisa Ramey filed an amended complaint for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief alleging that Jimmie Wilson filed to be the Democrat Party's candidate for state representative but was ineligible to serve as a member of the General Assembly. Tollett filed a motion to intervene, along with a proposed complaint in intervention. The circuit court dismissed Ramey's amended complaint for a lack of standing. The court also dismissed Tollett's complaint due to his failure to serve Wilson with either his motion to intervene or his proposed complaint in intervention. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that dismissal was warranted but that the circuit court's decision should be modified to a dismissal without prejudice. View "Tollett v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner did not establish a Brady violation or that evidence was falsified as grounds for issuance of the writ.Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery and kidnapping. In his second coram nobis petition, Petitioner raised a Brady claim alleging that the State withheld crime-lab reports and conspired to manipulate DNA evidence to falsely identify him as the assailant. Petitioner's remaining claims were allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) Petitioner did not establish a Brady violation; (2) Petitioner did not establish that evidence was falsified; and (3) Petitioner's remaining allegations were not grounds for the writ. View "Williamson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second-degree sexual assault and sentence of sixty months' imprisonment, holding that the victim's therapy records were protected from disclosure by the absolute psychotherapist-patient privilege in Ark. R. Evid. 503.On appeal, the court of appeals determined (1) the Arkansas privilege law did not absolutely shield the victim's therapy records, and the circuit court should have conducted an in camera review for favorable Brady evidence; and (2) the records did not satisfy Brady's materiality requirement. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) the therapy records and communications were privileged under Rule 503; and (2) Defendant was not constitutionally entitled to disclosure of the privileged records. View "Vaughn v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's three pro se petitions for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that the circuit court did not err by not granting relief.Appellant pled guilty to four counts of first-degree sexual assault. Appellant later filed three separate petitions for error coram nobis relief. The trial court denied all three petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even if Appellant's allegations were considered to be true, Appellant did not establish that there was a reasonable probability that the allegations would have changed the result of the proceedings. View "Hayes v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree escape, and employment a firearm to commit the murder, holding that there was no prejudicial error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict on the first-degree-murder charge; (2) Defendant was not denied assistance of counsel; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and manslaughter; and (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain text messages that were purportedly sent to Defendant by the victim. View "Armstrong v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to establish grounds for the writ.Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His death sentence was later modified to a term of life imprisonment without parole. In the instant coram nobis petition, Petitioner asserted that the trial court was required to appoint two attorneys to appoint two attorneys to serve as counsel during his trial and that the single attorney appointed to represent him was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner did not establish grounds for the writ. View "Wooten v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to state a ground for the writ.Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, theft of property, and employment of a firearm to commit aggravated robbery. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant later filed a habeas petition alleging that his conviction was invalid because he was denied his right to a speedy trial. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition was correctly denied and dismissed because speedy trial claims do not state a viable habeas claim. View "Talley v. Kelley" on Justia Law