Annabelle Clinton Imber

The case involved a dispute over the validity of a power of attorney signed by decedent Billy Joe Smith in favor of his brother-in-law Larrie Owen, which Owen used to transfer the decedent's real property to his siblings. Appellant Sondra Jones, the estate's beneficiary under the decedent's unrevoked will, challenged the power of attorney on grounds that it was not properly acknowledged by the notary. The court held the power of attorney invalid because the notary signed the acknowledgment certificate before the decedent executed the document and without personally witnessing or verifying the signature as required by statute. As a result, Owen lacked authority to make the transfers, and the court reversed the circuit court's ruling upholding the power of attorney while affirming the imposition of a constructive trust over the remaining estate property.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved Amanda Gail Holt's convictions in Pulaski County Circuit Court for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, maintaining a drug premises, and exposing a child to methamphetamine, resulting in a 612-month sentence. The Arkansas Court of Appeals had reversed the manufacturing and maintaining convictions for insufficient evidence but upheld the others; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and examined the sufficiency of the evidence as if the appeal originated there. The court found substantial evidence—including a warm hotplate, stained salt container, matchboxes, camp fuel, glass jars, bi-layer liquids, hypodermic needles, coffee filters, and children's clothing in the bedroom where Holt had been staying, plus the strong chemical odor, decontamination needs, and positive hair follicle tests on the children—to support all convictions under the relevant statutes. It therefore affirmed the circuit court's denial of directed verdicts on all counts and reversed the Court of Appeals in part.

criminal lawprocedure

In Cantrell v. State, the defendant appealed his convictions in two consolidated cases for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, maintaining a drug premises, and failure to appear, which resulted in a 145-year prison sentence. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence on both points raised. Regarding the drug convictions, the court held that Cantrell failed to preserve his sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge because his directed-verdict motions addressed only the charged offense of manufacturing and did not specifically address the elements of the lesser-included attempt offense on which he was convicted. On the failure-to-appear sentence, the court concluded that Cantrell's claim of an illegal sentence based on lack of habitual-offender notice was a due-process argument that had to be raised at trial to be preserved for appeal and could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a contractor's claims against an engineering firm for professional malpractice based on a soils report and against cities for breach of contract and related claims arising from unexpected subsurface conditions during wastewater facility construction. The court affirmed the dismissal of the malpractice claim against GHBW, holding that the three-year statute of limitations began running when the soils report was prepared in 2001 rather than when the construction contract was signed in 2002. It reversed the summary judgments for Garver and the Cities, determining that material issues of fact existed regarding the interpretation of exculpatory clauses in the contract and whether differing site conditions were present under the federally mandated clause.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Kelley v. State, the defendant was convicted by a jury of raping a child under fourteen years old and sentenced to forty-seven years in prison as a habitual offender. On appeal, he challenged the circuit court's admission of evidence under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b), including certified records of his two prior Texas convictions for indecency with a child and testimony from another individual alleging similar misconduct when the witness was a minor. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was admissible because it tended to prove motive, intent, preparation, plan, or knowledge in the current case involving sexual offenses against minors. The court also rejected arguments that any error was not harmless, concluding that the limiting instruction was sufficient and that the evidence was properly considered by the jury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a tort action filed by Kevin Lawrence against Barrett Cato and others alleging negligence in the discharge of a firearm that injured Lawrence at a residence. Cato, a member of the Arkansas National Guard, was served with process while on uniformed duty and moved to dismiss, asserting that service violated Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-62-403, which exempts organized militia members from civil process while attending military duty. The circuit court denied the motion, finding the statute unconstitutional under the separation-of-powers doctrine and Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, holding the statute constitutional as substantive legislation that creates a right not superseded by procedural rules, rendering the service invalid and depriving the circuit court of jurisdiction over Cato.

proceduretorts & liability