In Heritage v. State, the appellant was convicted after being arrested at a UPS office while picking up a package containing methamphetamine (addressed to his son at an incorrect, vacant location) and after officers found additional methamphetamine in his pocket; he received consecutive sentences of 25 years for possession with intent to deliver and 7 years for simple possession. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed both convictions on appeal. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the intent-to-deliver conviction because the quantity of methamphetamine exceeded the statutory threshold creating a rebuttable presumption of intent, which constituted substantial evidence. It further ruled that no entrapment instruction was warranted because the facts showed only that officers and UPS staff afforded an opportunity to commit the offense, without any persuasion or inducement, and that the trial court properly denied a mistrial based on remarks during closing argument in the sentencing phase since those remarks were not heard by the jury and caused no prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a negligence lawsuit by Willie Ward against Richard Avery and Carroll Truck Lines after a rear-end collision in which Ward claimed injuries including an ankle infection from a falling screwdriver, back and neck pain, and a hernia from a hospital fall. The jury returned a $100,000 general verdict in Ward's favor. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the trial court erred in admitting medical bills and related testimony without adequate foundation showing that the expenses were reasonable, necessary, and causally connected to the accident rather than pre-existing conditions or unrelated treatments.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned the constitutionality of Arkansas Code Annotated § 21-9-301, the municipal tort-immunity statute, after Elwanda White sued the City of Newport for negligence by its ambulance service in failing to perform resuscitative measures on her husband, who died after suffering heart-attack symptoms. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on the city's immunity claim, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the statute, which immunizes municipalities from tort liability except to the extent of liability insurance, does not violate Article 2, § 13, or Article 5, § 32, of the Arkansas Constitution because the legislature reasonably acted to prevent municipal bankruptcy and maintain public services. Historical precedent showed that the constitution was not intended to bar all legislative adjustments to common-law remedies against governmental entities. The court concluded that such immunity statutes represent a permissible public-policy choice that balances individual redress with governmental stability.

torts & liability

The case concerned a parent's petition for mandamus to require a school board to hear an appeal of his son's three-day suspension for using inappropriate language on a school bus. The trial court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding no right to appeal, that any claim was moot, and that the parent had chosen suspension over paddling. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-507(b) expressly grants a student suspended by a teacher the right to appeal to the school board and that this statutory right is a matter of public importance not subject to dismissal on mootness grounds. The majority reasoned that the plain language of the statute controls and is not impliedly repealed by later legislation directing minimum due-process procedures under Goss v. Lopez.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved Ledell Lee's convictions for the rape, kidnapping, and robbery of a woman in Jacksonville, Arkansas, resulting in consecutive sentences of life, fifty years, and forty years. Lee appealed on three grounds: the trial court's denial of a mistrial after the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument in the penalty phase, the sufficiency of evidence supporting a separate kidnapping conviction, and the denial of a motion for continuance. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the prosecutor's remarks were proper rebuttal to the defense's argument, the restraint employed exceeded what was incidental to the rape, and Lee failed to demonstrate prejudice from the denial of the continuance.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a petition by Dr. Jerry A. Jones to modify an existing child custody order that had awarded custody of the parties' son to his ex-wife, Christine Jones, following their divorce. The chancellor granted the modification after several ex parte orders and a hearing, citing material changes including Ms. Jones's move to Little Rock, Dr. Jones's remarriage, and Ms. Jones's alleged inability to meet the child's emotional needs. On review, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the custody change and remanded with instructions to reinstate the original order. The court held that the chancellor had erroneously shifted the burden of proof to Ms. Jones to demonstrate her fitness, rather than requiring Dr. Jones to prove a material change in circumstances and that modification served the child's best interests. The decision also rejected reliance on the relocation and remarriage as sufficient grounds for modification and noted procedural concerns with the ex parte process and lack of neutral expert evaluation.

family lawprocedure