Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Walker v. Dir.
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2014-12-03
Derrick Walker appealed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits by the Arkansas Board of Review, which had upheld an Appeal Tribunal ruling that he was not able to perform suitable work. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the Tribunal’s decision and reversed, holding that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the facts closely matched those in its prior decision in McDaniel v. Director, where a similar finding was overturned, and therefore remanded the case for an award of benefits.
labor & employment
Calaway v. Crotty
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2014-11-12
Ralph Shane Calaway appealed the Union County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to modify a 2012 order of protection that required him to stay away from Tara Fallen Crotty, her children, and family members for three years. The original order was based on their past dating relationship, his possession of firearms, and a history of extreme violence; in his motion, Calaway sought to remove certain language from the order, shorten its duration to six months, and add a provision allowing him to possess firearms. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-209 permits modification of such orders upon application, notice, and a hearing, but the trial court denied the request after a hearing at which Crotty testified she continued to fear Calaway due to his temper and history of unwanted contact. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Calaway’s failure to appeal the original order barred relitigation of its basis and that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding of no material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modification, as Crotty’s credible testimony indicated he still posed a threat.
family lawgunsprocedure
Barber v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2014-11-12
Robert Kenneth Barber appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed statements made during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of that claim. Instead, it ordered Barber to file a supplemental addendum within seven days containing a DVD of dashcam video from the traffic stop, which had been admitted into evidence and played at the suppression hearing. The court explained that Arkansas Supreme Court rules require inclusion of all exhibits essential to understanding the case, and that de novo review of suppression issues requires the appellate court to examine the full record presented to the trial court.
criminal lawprocedure
H v. v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2014-11-05
The case involved H.V., a seventeen-year-old, appealing her adjudication as delinquent by a Benton County juvenile court for acting as an accomplice to theft of property, a class A misdemeanor, after her twenty-year-old boyfriend stole a tool accessory from a Wal-Mart store. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication and probation order. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding of accomplice liability because video footage and testimony showed H.V. standing close to her boyfriend, blocking the camera’s view while he removed a security tag and concealed the item, and glancing around afterward, which the court viewed as an attempt to aid the theft. Under Arkansas statutes, a person is an accomplice if they aid or attempt to aid another in committing the offense with the purpose of facilitating it, and the court concluded her conduct went beyond mere presence or knowledge of the crime.
criminal law
Johnson v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2014-11-05 · cited 5×
In Johnson v. State, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the Lafayette County Circuit Court’s revocation of Bobby Johnson’s probation after he pleaded guilty in 2009 to three counts each of breaking or entering and theft of property and received five years’ probation. The State had petitioned to revoke based on multiple alleged violations, and Johnson appealed, claiming the trial court improperly took judicial notice that he knew the probation conditions and erred by allowing the State to reopen its case after initially ruling to hear additional testimony from a probation officer confirming Johnson had signed and received the conditions. The court affirmed the revocation, holding that testimony from Johnson’s probation officers about routine signing and delivery practices, combined with Johnson’s own admissions of reporting issues and other conduct, provided sufficient evidence of violations under a preponderance standard. It further ruled that any reopening of the case caused no prejudice because the circuit court retained jurisdiction before entering the sentencing order and the additional evidence merely confirmed findings already supported by the September hearing record.
criminal law
Green v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2014-10-29 · cited 5×
The case involved James Green’s appeal of a trial court order revoking his probation and sentencing him to three years in prison. Green had pleaded guilty in 2006 to furnishing prohibited articles and received a four-year probation term; the State filed a revocation petition in 2007 alleging violations, but the hearing did not occur until September 2013, after the probation period had ended. Although Green raised a confrontation-clause objection, the Arkansas Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the revocation. Instead, it remanded the case because Arkansas law permits revocation after the probation term expires only if the defendant was arrested, a warrant was issued, a timely petition was filed with a follow-up warrant, or similar conditions occurred before expiration. The record contained only an indication that a warrant had been issued, without the warrant itself or other proof, leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction unclear and requiring supplementation of the record.
criminal lawprocedure