Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court disqualifying defense attorney Patrick Benca as Defendant's counsel in this criminal action, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by disqualifying Benca from representing Defendant.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, but the convictions were reversed due to evidentiary error. Benca represented Defendant at his second trial. After a mistrial was declared due to Benca's becoming a witness during the second trial, the circuit court made clear that Benca was disqualified from participating as counsel for Defendant. Defendant was convicted after a third trial, at which he was represented by different attorneys. The conviction was reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant retained Benca to represented him at his fourth trial, but the circuit court refused to recognize Benca as attorney of record based on the earlier order finding that Benca was disqualified. The Supreme Court reversed the order, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by disqualifying Benca from representing Defendant. View "Stanton v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying and dismissing the petition.In his petition, Appellant alleged that the original sentencing order was illegal because he had been charged as a habitual offender and was not entitled to probation and, therefore, the order revoking his probation and increasing his sentence was illegal. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied and dismissed Appellant's petition for the writ. View "Livingston v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that Appellant, an inmate, had failed to state a ground for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that there was no error.Appellant brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that, in two separate cases involving multiple crimes, there was error in the charging and trial court process. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims that he was never properly arraigned, appointed counsel, or served with an arrest warrant for the rape and kidnapping charges did not implicate the facility validity of the judgment or the trial court's jurisdiction, and therefore, the writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. View "Crawford v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for three counts of first-degree murder and other crimes and his sentence of three consecutive life sentences plus sixty-five years' imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant failed to preserve for appeal his argument that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on count six because the State failed to name the victim of that offense in the criminal information; (2) the circuit court did not impermissibly stack enhancements in sentencing Defendant; (3) the circuit court did not commit reversible error in excluding certain testimony as hearsay; (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's proffered manslaughter jury instruction. View "Tucker v. State" 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 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 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 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

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Appellant of first-degree murder and other crimes and sentencing him to an aggregate term of two life sentences plus 835 years' imprisonment, holding that the State failed to demonstrate that Appellant was brought to trial within the twelve-month period required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1(b).At issue on appeal was whether Appellant's constitutional right to a speedy trial, as embodied in Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1, was violated when the State failed to bring him to trial within twelve months of the date of his arrest. The Supreme Court concluded that Appellant's right was indeed violated because he was held for a total of 405 days during which the speedy trial was not tolled, a total that exceeded the requisite 365-day period. View "Parker v. State" on Justia Law