Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of two counts of rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with his girlfriend's daughters when they were both under the age of fourteen. After the judgment was affirmed, Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief was denied. Petitioner subsequently petitioned to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis and a motion for leave to file a response to the response filed by the State. The allegations in Petitioner's petition primarily pertained to his claim that the victims were not under the age of fourteen when the offenses occurred. The Supreme Court denied the writ and the motion, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the writ was warranted. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted in 2006 of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. In 2011, Appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis and an amended petition, alleging that the prosecutor had withheld information about certain police reports that Appellant contended exonerated him and could have been used to impeach the officer's testimony. Appellant asserted that because this information was withheld, the trial court was not presented with a sufficient factual basis on which to accept the plea and that he would not have entered the plea if he had been aware of the information. He also included a claim that he was not convicted of the charge indicated on the judgment because the trial court did not specify that the substance manufactured was methamphetamine. The trial court determined the petition was without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding (1) the trial court's decision to deny the petition was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that his sentence was illegal. View "Lee v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment plus fifteen years. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court abused its discretion (1) in admitting evidence of a jailhouse fight in the State's rebuttal case, and (2) in limiting the testimony of an expert witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to preserve his first argument for review on appeal; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert witness's testimony on the subject of what a person experiences when he or she shoots another person. View "Gordon v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the rape of B.B., his minor stepdaughter, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in (1) denying his motion for the trial judge to recuse because the trial judge had served as a deputy prosecuting attorney on an earlier case in which Appellant had been charged with raping S.S., who testified at the instant trial; (2) admitting testimony under the pedophile exception to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) and under Ark. R. Evid. 403; and (3) granting the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence Appellant intended to offer concerning his sexual relationship with his wife. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in denying Appellant's request that she recuse, as Appellant failed to demonstrate actual bias or that the trial judge was required to recuse; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting the disputed testimony; and (3) Appellant failed to preserve his final argument for the Court's review. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from a circuit court order reflecting his convictions for capital murder and aggravated robbery and his sentence to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant's sole assertion on appeal was that the circuit court erred in refusing to hear testimony from a juror in support of his motion for new trial based on Ark. R. Evid. 606(b). The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the testimony and denying Appellant's motion for new trial, as Rule 606(b) states plainly that a juror may not testify as to the effect of anything upon his mind as influencing him to assent to the verdict. View "Arnold v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jason Winbush was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree and sentenced to 540 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner's sole ground for the writ was the claim that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the judgment. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the issue was not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding and, rather, was a matter to be settled on direct appeal. View "Winbush v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree in the stabbing death of Gabino Mendoza. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, claiming (1) the prosecution violated his right to due process by coercing three persons into making false statements and that the three later provided affidavits attesting to the coercion, and (2) his attorney did not afford him effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner's claims did not state a basis for the writ. View "Rodriguez v. State" on Justia Law

Following her resignation as a dental assistant in the dental office of Appellee, Appellant sued Appellee for sexual harassment and outrage. On remand, the circuit court granted Appellee's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that Appellant's state-law claim for sexual harassment failed because the material facts established that Appellee did not have enough employees for a cause of action to exist against him pursuant to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA). On interlocutory appeal, Appellant claimed the numerosity requirement of the ACRA violated the state and federal Constitutions. The Supreme Court dismissed without prejudice Appellant's appeal, holding that the circuit court's order was not final and appealable because it did not satisfy the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b). View "Pepper v. Garrett" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Appellant of aggravated residential burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, terroristic threatening in the first degree, and battery in the second degree. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion for a directed verdict to reduce the kidnapping charge from a Class Y felony to a Class B felony, and (2) admitting testimony concerning his previous uncharged conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Defendant guilty of kidnapping as a Class Y felony, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony at the sentencing phase of the trial. View "Huff v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Appellant of rape and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial judge erred by allowing the introduction of a prior offense into evidence under Ark. R. of Evid. 404(b). Appellant's principal point on appeal was that the pedophile exception was inapplicable to his prior conviction because the two offenses were factually dissimilar and temporally improximate and because there was no evidence he had an intimate relationship with either victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that Appellant's prior conviction satisfied the pedophile exception to Rule 404(b), as (1) there were sufficient similarities between the two cases, (2) there was sufficient evidence of intimate relationships; and (3) because Appellant committed both offenses as an adult and assaulted each child victim in the same manner, the trial judge's decision to admit Appellant's relatively old conviction was reasonable. View "Craigg v. State" on Justia Law