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
Honey v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-29
Daniel Honey was convicted by a Logan County jury of one count of rape and one count of second-degree sexual assault involving a seven-year-old child. On appeal, he contended that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after the State cross-examined him about an undisclosed allegation of improper conduct with another child, which he claimed violated pretrial discovery requests for Rule 404(b) evidence. The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of that argument. Instead, it remanded the case to settle and supplement the record with the missing jury verdict forms, ordered Honey to file a supplemented addendum and a full abstract of the trial testimony, and directed rebriefing. The court explained that these deficiencies prevented it from reviewing the mistrial claim or conducting any harmless-error analysis regarding the strength of the evidence.
criminal lawprocedure
Wait v. Elmen
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-29
In this case, business partners Spencer Elmen and Steven Wait, equal members and designated managers of two Arkansas LLCs operating a Cupid’s Lingerie store, became embroiled in a dispute after Elmen sued Wait individually and derivatively for alleged conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims based on assertions that Wait diverted company assets for personal use; Elmen sought monetary damages plus a preliminary injunction removing Wait from management and requiring an accounting. The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted the preliminary injunction, but the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to dissolve it. The appellate court held that the circuit court abused its discretion because Elmen had not demonstrated irreparable harm, as the alleged financial harms were compensable by money damages and reputational damage does not qualify as irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief. The court further found that the injunction improperly granted sua sponte relief beyond the scope of the pleadings by suspending payments to both parties.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Skender v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-29 · cited 3×
Brian Skender sued his employer, Union Pacific Railroad, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for a workplace injury sustained in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, filing an initial complaint in 2013 and a second one in 2015 after the first was dismissed without prejudice. The circuit court ultimately dismissed both complaints with prejudice, ruling that Skender had not shown the diligence or extraordinary circumstances needed for equitable tolling of FELA’s three-year statute of limitations. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits of Skender’s challenge to that ruling. Instead, it held that the addendum to his appellate brief was deficient under Rule 4-2(a)(8) because it omitted the pleadings, motions, and related documents from the original 2013 case that are necessary to confirm jurisdiction and decide the issues presented. The court therefore ordered Skender to file a supplemental addendum within seven days.
labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability
Cutsinger v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-29 · cited 3×
Aaron Cutsinger was convicted by a Sebastian County jury of first-degree murder of Leanora Rippy, attempted first-degree murder of her infant son, and committing the murder in the presence of a child, after evidence showed he repeatedly ran over Rippy with his truck and left her and the child on a mountain road. On appeal, Cutsinger argued that the circuit court erred by denying his motion in limine and admitting a text message in which he stated he was “ready to kill me some cops,” claiming the statement was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Arkansas Court of Appeals agreed that admitting the message was error but held the error harmless, because the remaining evidence of guilt—including matching tire tracks and vehicle trim at the scene, DNA from Rippy’s blood and tissue on Cutsinger’s truck and shoes, and his own detailed confession—was overwhelming. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and consecutive sentences.
criminal lawprocedure
Tipton v. Tipton
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-08 · cited 3×
In a divorce case between Michael and Pamelia Tipton, the Perry County Circuit Court granted the divorce and ordered an unequal division of marital assets, awarding Pamelia the couple’s real property and mobile home plus her retirement account while allowing Michael to keep his own retirement accounts of unknown value. Michael appealed, arguing that the court failed to follow Arkansas law governing property division. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-12-315(a), marital property must be divided equally unless the court finds an equal division inequitable and then expressly considers and recites one or more of nine statutory factors to justify the unequal split. The circuit court’s written order made an unequal distribution based on the parties’ agreement to shield assets from creditors but recited none of the required factors, rendering the division erroneous as a matter of law.
family lawproperty
Ogborn v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-08 · cited 2×
The case concerned Janefer Ogborn’s challenge to an administrative decision by the Arkansas Department of Human Services placing her name on the Child Maltreatment Central Registry after allegations that she had neglected her three stepchildren by depriving them of adequate food, restricting their movement and sleep, and maintaining severely limited living conditions. Parallel proceedings included a dependency-neglect case in which Ogborn stipulated to a finding of dependency-neglect based on inadequate food, malnutrition, environmental neglect, and extreme cruelty, as well as criminal charges on which she was ultimately acquitted. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the registry placement. The court held that the circuit court’s dependency-neglect adjudication, issued by a court of competent jurisdiction on the same facts, had preclusive effect under Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-18-807, requiring the administrative law judge to apply issue preclusion and collateral estoppel without relitigating the underlying allegations. Because the “actually litigated” element of collateral estoppel was satisfied, the ALJ properly declined to hold a new hearing or reach a contrary result.
family lawprocedure