Robert L. Brown

The case involved T.C., a twelve-year-old minor, who was adjudicated delinquent by the Ouachita County Circuit Court on a charge of second-degree murder for suffocating his sister and was committed to the Division of Youth Services. T.C. appealed on multiple grounds, including denial of his motion to suppress his confession, the reliability of that statement, sufficiency of the evidence, and errors in his disposition order. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the adjudication and remanded the case, focusing on procedural issues surrounding the interrogation, Miranda warnings, and waiver of rights during questioning that began without counsel or a recorded session. The court found error in how the confession was obtained and used, while upholding certain aspects of the disposition analysis under juvenile statutes.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

The case involved the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission recommending permanent removal of Circuit Judge L.T. Simes for violating Canons 4(G), 4(E), and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by continuing to act as administrator and attorney for the Chandler Estate, receiving rental payments, and failing to withdraw or account for funds after taking the bench in 1997. The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the Commission's factual findings as not clearly erroneous but declined to impose permanent removal. Instead, it suspended Judge Simes without pay through the end of his term on December 31, 2010, and denied his motion to strike extraneous record materials. The core reasoning focused on the judge's prolonged failure to disengage from the non-family estate role and related impropriety after assuming judicial office, while determining that removal was not warranted under the circumstances.

procedure

In Ray v. State, the appellant was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses including two counts of aggravated robbery, four counts of aggravated assault, attempted murder, and others, stemming from a 2007 armed robbery of a sporting goods store in Arkadelphia where he used a sawed-off shotgun to force employees and customers to the ground, stole merchandise and cash, and later fired at a pursuing witness before being arrested. He received a life sentence as a habitual offender. On appeal, Ray challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the robbery and assault convictions, the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from an inventory search of the getaway car, and the proof of his prior Tennessee convictions for habitual offender sentencing. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and the sentence, holding that the sufficiency challenges were not preserved due to an insufficiently specific directed verdict motion at trial, that the inventory search complied with proper procedures, and that the certified records provided substantial evidence of the prior felonies.

criminal lawprocedure

PH, LLC, a land developer, sought to rezone its agricultural property in Conway to residential for subdivision into twenty lots, but the city council denied the request. The circuit court ruled that the council's action was legislative rather than administrative, precluding de novo review with a jury, and found after a bench trial that the denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable due to concerns like traffic and safety. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that rezoning decisions by city councils are legislative acts subject only to limited review for rationality, and the decision here had a reasonable basis supported by evidence.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an interlocutory appeal and cross-appeal from a circuit court's decision on class certification in a lawsuit brought by former residents of the Springdale Ridge Apartments against owners, managers, builders, architects, and a utility company. The plaintiffs alleged that flawed HVAC and hot-water system designs caused dangerous carbon monoxide levels in their units, leading to claims related to breach of contract, negligence, and other issues arising from lease agreements and building conditions between 2001 and 2004. The court affirmed the certification of Subclass A, finding that common questions of fact and law predominated over individual issues for those residents, while it denied certification of Subclass C because individual issues would predominate and render the litigation unmanageable. The court also denied motions to dismiss the cross-appeal. The decision deferred to the circuit judge's assessment of manageability for the class action.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

The case involved Joseph Rounsaville's appeal from his convictions in Lonoke County Circuit Court for rape, kidnapping, and terroristic threatening, along with his sentences as a habitual offender. Rounsaville challenged the admission of testimony from a prior victim, K.T., under Arkansas Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b), arguing it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to his consent defense, and also claimed the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the prior victim's testimony was independently relevant under Rule 404(b) to rebut the consent claim and show a common plan or intent, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

criminal lawprocedure