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

This case involved a mother's petition to terminate a guardianship over her child that had been established with her consent while she was incarcerated. The circuit court denied the petition after applying a custody-modification standard, requiring proof of a material change in the child's circumstances and that termination was in the child's best interest. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court used the incorrect legal standard. The court reasoned that termination of guardianship cases are governed by whether the guardianship remains necessary, not by the stricter change-of-circumstances test applicable to custody disputes.

family law

The case involved Diana Nichole Robertson's appeal of her convictions for capital murder, aggravated robbery, and arson, along with her resulting sentences of life imprisonment without parole, twenty-five years, and ten years, stemming from a plan with her boyfriend to kill a customer and steal his gun collection, during which she set the victim's body on fire. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions after reviewing her three points on appeal. The court concluded that the claim regarding a duress jury instruction for the murder charge was not preserved because the proposed instruction was never proffered into the record, that suppression of her statements after invoking counsel was properly denied, and that the admission of certain testimony by a witness under the state-of-mind hearsay exception was correctly allowed after the trial court reconsidered.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellant Ricky Earl White's conviction for first-degree murder after he shot and killed Penze Wine in a parking lot following a minor car collision, with White sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment plus a fifteen-year firearm enhancement. White appealed solely on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from a witness who had seen him in possession of a .380 caliber handgun. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the testimony was admissible because it was independently relevant to prove the shooter's identity given the .380 shell casing recovered at the scene and did not constitute evidence of other crimes or bad acts under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b). The court also found no reversible error in a separate closing-argument issue raised during its mandatory review.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involved a dispute over whether Ben Eddings could obtain a public road easement across land owned by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) that surrounded his property, with the AGFC raising sovereign immunity and other defenses in county court. After the county court entered orders establishing the easement, the AGFC appealed to circuit court, but the circuit court dismissed the appeal with prejudice, finding that the AGFC had failed to timely perfect it under Arkansas District Court Rule 9 because the certified county court record lacked a file stamp showing when it was received in circuit court. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appeal was timely under Rule 9 because an affidavit from the county-circuit clerk provided sufficient evidence that he had filed the certified record in circuit court on the same dates the AGFC filed its petition and notice of appeal. The court emphasized that clerk testimony can establish the filing date when a document lacks a file mark, and it noted recent amendments to the rule for future county court appeals.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss a lawsuit by Oil Producers of Arkansas and related parties. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against two ADEQ general permits regulating pits and land application of drilling wastes at oil and gas sites, arguing that ADEQ lacked jurisdiction (which belonged to the Oil and Gas Commission), statutory authority to issue the permits or promulgate rules, and compliance with required procedures. ADEQ asserted sovereign immunity under the Arkansas Constitution as a state agency. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged ultra vires actions by ADEQ outside its regulatory authority, which falls within an exception to sovereign immunity, and that factual and legal issues regarding the permits' validity required further development in the trial court.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Ledell Lee's appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, following his conviction for capital murder and death sentence in the beating and strangling of Debra Reese. The court reviewed claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt and penalty phases, applying the Strickland v. Washington standards requiring proof that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that it prejudiced the outcome. The court rejected the State's law of the case argument because the mandate in a prior postconviction decision had been recalled due to prior counsel's impairment from substance abuse. It addressed issues such as alleged conflicts of interest and other claims in the guilt phase while declining to consider some arguments not properly presented on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

Doris Nelson sued Dr. William Scott Stubblefield and St. Bernards Regional Medical Center for medical negligence after she fell while a patient in 2004, claiming the doctor and nursing staff failed to meet the standard of care. After a jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of the defendants, finding no negligence that caused Nelson's damages, and the trial court denied her motion for a new trial. On appeal, Nelson argued error in refusing her modified jury instruction that would have allowed a physician expert to testify on nursing standards of care, but the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the standard AMI instruction correctly reflected the statute requiring expert testimony from providers in the same specialty and that the physician had not been qualified as a nursing expert. The court also found no abuse of discretion in limiting references to the hospital's insurer during trial or in other procedural rulings.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a dispute over repayment of multiple loans originally made by Buford McDaniel to David Foscue, which passed through estates to Roland McDaniel as administrator. McDaniel sued to recover alleged unpaid balances on four loans, relying on a 2003 letter from Foscue acknowledging certain remaining amounts and subsequent payments; Foscue counterclaimed for overpayments on the loans. The trial court granted summary judgment to McDaniel on the theory of an account stated. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the evidentiary record was incomplete on key facts such as the full list of loans, payments, and overpayments, and that the complaint and counterclaim were factually intertwined so that summary judgment was inappropriate.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved attorney Thomas Lewis Travis who was found by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to have violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to provide client files to successor counsel after terminating representation of J. Matilde Martinez in immigration and other legal matters. The Committee reprimanded Travis and imposed costs and a fine, which the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. The court reasoned that the rule imposes an affirmative duty on the attorney to surrender papers and property to which the client is entitled upon termination of representation, regardless of whether the attorney considers the documents to be work product or has provided copies previously, and rejected arguments based on dual representation or client maintenance of files.

immigrationprocedure

This case involved a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Laura Allen to stop the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Ninth Division, from exercising jurisdiction over a complaint seeking specific performance of a Family Settlement Agreement related to trust assets from the sale of a family home. The underlying dispute stemmed from prior guardianship proceedings, a constructive trust imposed on proceeds from the sale of Longfellow Place, a divorce action, and a settlement agreement allocating funds among family members and trusts. The Arkansas Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the Ninth Division had first acquired jurisdiction over the core matters in earlier cases including the guardianship (PGD 2004-0603) and constructive-trust (CV 2004-11842) actions. The court reasoned that the Ninth Division did not commit a plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion in handling the settlement enforcement, and that an appeal would not adequately prevent conflicts between circuit court divisions.

family lawprocedureproperty

The case involved appellant Alvin Travis McCullough's conviction for rape, kidnapping, and residential burglary, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, after he unlawfully entered a woman's home and assaulted her. McCullough appealed on the sole ground that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his two prior residential burglary convictions and his attempted escape from detention under Arkansas Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the prior burglary evidence was admissible to show motive, plan, or intent and to rebut a consent defense, while the escape attempt was admissible to demonstrate consciousness of guilt. The court further concluded that the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, and that the trial judge provided appropriate limiting instructions to the jury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a breach-of-contract lawsuit in which Asbury Automotive was sued by former business partners over a failed used-car sales venture and related employment agreements; after prevailing at trial, Asbury sought attorneys’ fees and costs under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-22-308. The circuit court denied the request, concluding that language in the parties’ Purchase Agreement and Employment Agreements showed they intended each side to bear its own expenses in any dispute. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the contracts’ alternative-dispute-resolution clauses did not clearly displace the statutory fee provision because those clauses addressed an arbitration process already ruled invalid for lack of mutuality, and the parties’ statements confirmed they sought only a valid, binding agreement. The court remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to award fees and in what amount under the statute.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved parents suing multiple medical providers, including a hospital, for alleged negligence in treating their young son after a car accident, resulting in his permanent paralysis; they later added the hospital's pooled liability fund as a defendant under a new statute. The trial court dismissed the liability pool, ruling that the 2007 amendment to Arkansas's direct-action statute created a substantive new cause of action that could not apply retroactively. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the amendment was remedial in nature, intended to allow direct suits against such funds to benefit injured parties, and thus applied retroactively to this case.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved the City of Little Rock seeking an injunction to declare a package store tenant a common nuisance and close it under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-74-109, based on multiple criminal incidents at the strip mall property where the store operated. The circuit court dismissed the motion with prejudice after a hearing, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the City failed to prove any link or facilitation between the crimes and the store's owner or employees, as required to establish a common nuisance, and that the City had not obtained circuit court rulings on other statutory interpretation issues, procedurally barring their review on appeal.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure