Carleton Harris

This case is the second appeal in a malpractice action brought by Sikes against Segers, following an earlier reversal of summary judgment in the first appeal. After Sikes discharged his attorney due to a perceived conflict of interest arising from a related defamation suit and a dispute over settlement tactics and evidence handling, the trial court allowed the attorney to withdraw but denied a continuance of the August 15 trial date. When neither Sikes nor new counsel appeared, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the denial of the continuance and resulting dismissal were improper under the circumstances, while declining to rule on the admissibility or suppression of tape recordings obtained in alleged violation of federal wiretap law.

proceduretorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case concerned a challenge by the Pulaski County Board of Equalization to statewide property assessment practices under Arkansas law. The Board sought a statewide investigation and reassessment to ensure all taxable property was valued at its true market value as required by the state constitution, and asked that Acts 411 of 1973 and 188 of 1969 be declared invalid. The Arkansas Public Service Commission upheld the acts, finding that the constitution permitted classification of property and did not mandate current market value assessments. On review, the Pulaski County Circuit Court held both acts unconstitutional, ruled that assessments must be based on current market value without classification, and ordered the Commission to develop and implement a five-year plan to reassess all counties at market value, beginning with those having the greatest disparities. The Supreme Court framed the issues as whether constitutional "value" means fair market value and whether the legislature may classify property for taxation purposes.

taxesproperty

In Andrews v. State, the defendant was charged with capital murder for the January 1978 killings of J.R. Gillen and Maggie Gillen at their garage following an argument and was convicted after a jury trial, receiving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Prior to trial, the court denied Andrews' motions for appointment of a defense psychiatrist at county expense and for a declaration that the insanity defense statute was unconstitutional because it placed the burden of proof on the defendant as an affirmative defense; the court also found Andrews' confession voluntary after a hearing. On appeal, Andrews challenged the voluntariness of his statements, the denial of his motions, and an error in the charging information that cited the wrong subsection of the capital murder statute. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the confession was voluntary, the information sufficiently charged an offense despite the citation error with no showing of prejudice or surprise, and there was no reversible error in the other rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Roberts v. Watts, the Drew County Quorum Court enacted an ordinance transferring the county clerk's statutory duties regarding disbursement of county funds to a new Department of Financial Management, and the clerk sued for a declaratory judgment that the ordinance violated Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution. The chancellor ruled part of the ordinance unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed and remanded without reaching the merits, because the Attorney General had not been served with a copy of the proceedings as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-2510 when the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance is challenged. The court explained that counties are municipal corporations, the statute applies to county ordinances, and notice to the Attorney General is especially important here given the potential statewide effect of interpreting Amendment 55 and Act 742 of 1977.

procedure

The case concerned the constitutionality of Section 17 of Act 569 of 1975, an appropriation act for the University of Arkansas, which prohibited full-time law school professors, associate professors, and instructors from handling or assisting with lawsuits in state or federal courts. The trial court upheld the provision with limiting constructions, but the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the section violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found the classifications unreasonable because the affected and unaffected faculty positions had substantially similar teaching duties, with no record evidence justifying the distinctions in outside practice restrictions.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case arose when a trial court in a criminal prosecution granted defense counsel's request to conduct voir dire of prospective jurors in chambers, excluding the press and public to avoid adverse publicity for the defendant. Petitioners, a newspaper and reporter, sought a writ of mandamus challenging the exclusion after learning of it. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the exclusion was invalid, ruling that voir dire is part of the trial itself and that the public and press have a right of access to it absent unusual circumstances outweighing that right. The court reasoned that the press has standing to challenge such orders, the issue was not moot due to its capacity for repetition, and public interest in observing proceedings funded by taxpayer dollars supports openness in criminal trials.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure