Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Burgess v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2016-04-21 · cited 30×
The case concerned Michael Burgess's appeal from the denial of jail-time credit against his 36-month prison sentence imposed after revocation of his probation on felony terroristic threatening charges. Burgess argued he was entitled to credit for 120 days of confinement previously served as a condition of his original probation, citing Arkansas Code Annotated sections 5-4-404 and 16-93-309(c). The circuit court awarded only 31 days of credit for time between arrest and the final hearing, rejecting credit for the earlier probation-related confinement. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutes provide credit for pretrial incarceration or post-revocation custody but not for confinement imposed as a condition of probation. A dissent contended that the plain language of section 5-4-404 entitled Burgess to the credit because the time was spent in custody for the underlying conduct.
criminal lawprocedure
Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc.
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2016-04-14 · cited 11×
The case concerns a certified question from a federal district court regarding the constitutionality of an Arkansas statute that limits the use of evidence about a plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt in civil lawsuits. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that Arkansas Code Annotated section 27-37-703 violates the separation-of-powers doctrine under the state constitution because it improperly dictates rules of evidence, which fall under the judicial branch's authority per Amendment 80. The underlying dispute arose from a car accident where the plaintiff sought damages for injuries, and the defendants sought to introduce evidence of her not wearing a seatbelt as part of a comparative fault defense. The court reasoned that the legislature cannot enact procedural rules like evidentiary restrictions without encroaching on judicial powers.
proceduretorts & liability
Johnson v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2016-04-14 · cited 6×
In Johnson v. State, an Arkansas inmate serving a life sentence was convicted by a jury of capital murder after stabbing and killing a correctional officer who attempted to confiscate what the inmate claimed were his personal shoes, and he was sentenced to death. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have given a jury instruction on the extreme-emotional-disturbance form of manslaughter and should have ordered disclosure of certain prison records to support claims about the conditions of confinement. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence did not provide a rational basis for the manslaughter instruction because the alleged provocations did not constitute a reasonable excuse under the statute, and that the requested records were not relevant or material to the defense under the applicable discovery rule. The court also conducted the mandatory review required in death-penalty cases and found no reversible error.
criminal lawprocedure
Trammell v. Wright
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2016-04-07 · cited 11×
The case involved a lawsuit by Linda Wright against police officer Travis Trammell alleging the state-law torts of false arrest and false imprisonment after he arrested her based on an ACIC database warrant that matched her name and photo but belonged to a different person with different identifying details. Trammell moved for summary judgment on grounds of immunity under Arkansas Code Annotated section 21-9-301, but the circuit court denied the motion, finding a factual issue on due diligence. On interlocutory appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that undisputed facts showed no intent to commit an intentional tort and that the statute provided immunity from suit for any resulting negligence in reliance on the database. The core reasoning addressed the scope of statutory immunity for officers acting on law-enforcement records and the absence of proof of bad faith or malice.
criminal lawproceduretorts & liability
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. v. Kanis & Denny Roads Suburban Water Improvement District No. 349 of Pulaski County Ex Rel. Haas
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2016-03-31 · cited 4×
The case involved Southwest Power Pool challenging a suburban water improvement district's 2013 reassessment of benefits on its property, which raised the annual tax levy from about $3,500 to over $60,000 after the company built a commercial facility connected to the City of Little Rock's water system rather than the district's lines. The district had constructed water lines in 2006, conveyed them to Central Arkansas Water, and later reassessed the property based on the new development. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the district, but the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Arkansas Code section 14-92-225(c)(2) exempts from assessment any improvement attached to an adjacent city's waterworks system and that the district's contrary interpretation did not align with the statute's plain language.
taxespropertyprocedure
Van Winkle v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2016-03-10 · cited 27×
In Van Winkle v. State, the appellant challenged his convictions for kidnapping, aggravated residential burglary, first-degree stalking, third-degree battery, first-degree assault, and first-degree terroristic threatening, along with a firearm enhancement, by appealing the circuit court's denial of his Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 petition for postconviction relief without a hearing. He argued that trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting an actual innocence defense based on his physical disabilities and an alternative theory that the victim and others had robbed and framed him, for not seeking a change of venue, and for not challenging the firearm sentence as structural error, while also claiming error in the denial of an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial, holding that Van Winkle's allegations were largely conclusory and failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed with different counsel actions, and that the record supported the circuit court's decision without needing further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure