Bradley D. Jesson

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

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging the certification of a class action in a tax refund dispute. Brandon Tedder paid sales tax on a used vehicle purchase, requested a refund from the Department of Finance and Administration on the ground that the sale qualified as an exempt isolated transaction under state law, and after denial sued on behalf of himself and others similarly situated who paid tax on used vehicles bought from non-dealers between 1992 and 1995. The chancellor certified the class under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but the Department appealed on jurisdictional grounds. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that sovereign immunity barred the suit because only Tedder had complied with the statutory prerequisite of filing and being denied a refund claim under Ark. Code Ann. § 26-18-507(e)(2)(A), and that full compliance with the statute is required to waive immunity for each taxpayer, as previously decided in State v. Staton.

taxesprocedure

In Evans v. State, Timothy Evans appealed his conviction for raping a fifteen-year-old boy, for which he received a forty-year prison sentence. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Evans's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved because his trial motion raised a different ground, and that uncorroborated victim testimony can support a rape conviction. The court also declined to review the denial of his motion to suppress a videotaped confession because Evans failed to abstract the relevant materials as required by court rules. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's exclusion of evidence that the victim had later abused his stepsister, as the ruling on relevancy was entitled to deference.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Larry Thompson, representing the Pair-O-Geese Hunting Club, who sued Potlatch Corporation for specific performance after claiming an oral agreement in 1989 granted the club hunting and trapping rights on Potlatch land in Bradley County. The chancellor found no contract had been formed and ruled against the club. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that conflicting testimony about the 1989 meeting supported the chancellor's credibility determination favoring Potlatch's account, and that documentary evidence showed Potlatch never made a binding offer or commitment. The court also upheld the denial of a default judgment due to improper service of the summons. Unaddressed claims regarding detrimental reliance and prescriptive easement were not considered on appeal.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Terminix International Co. v. Stabbs, homeowners sued Terminix and others after discovering termite damage in a property purchased in 1992, initially alleging breach of contract based on a VA-HUD inspection form and later amending the complaint to assert a negligence claim for failure to properly inspect and report on the damage. Terminix moved to compel arbitration under clauses in separate Sub-Structure Service Agreement and Termite Protection Plan documents, but the trial court split the claims, sending only post-October 1992 damages to arbitration while allowing the negligence portion to proceed in circuit court. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that state law excludes tort matters from arbitration agreements regardless of broad language covering claims arising out of or relating to the contracts, and that the amended complaint legitimately stated an independent tort claim involving foreseeable harm rather than a mere contract breach. The court noted that the existence of a contractual relationship does not bar a separate tort action and that the plaintiffs had not signed the arbitration agreements in question.

proceduretorts & liability

In Burradell v. State, the appellant appeared in municipal court for a DWI plea hearing while under the influence of alcohol, registering a .13 blood alcohol level and smelling of alcohol, though he exhibited no disruptive behavior. The municipal judge summarily held him in contempt and imposed a two-day jail sentence, which the circuit court upheld after a de novo trial with a reduced sentence of time served. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the contempt adjudication, holding that courts have inherent authority to punish contemptuous acts committed in their presence, such as appearing intoxicated, to preserve order, the respect due to judicial authority, and the dignity of proceedings, without being limited by the specific categories in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-108(a).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a DWI charge against John L. Johnson Jr. where the State appealed after the trial court directed a verdict in his favor at the close of the prosecution's case. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the appeal was proper and that the trial court erred by weighing the credibility of the evidence rather than assessing its sufficiency, and by excluding evidence of intoxication from a controlled substance. The court reasoned that the officers' testimony about the defendant's slurred speech, red glassy eyes, odor of intoxicant, and admission to drinking provided competent evidence for the jury to consider, and that the DWI statute allows proof under either impairment or BAC methods. Error was declared.

criminal lawprocedure

Jones-Blair Co. sued Lucy Hammett for an unpaid account balance from a supply contract, prompting her counterclaim alleging accounting errors, failure to reimburse promotional materials, and tortious interference with customer contracts. After the original attorney withdrew upon becoming a judge and a replacement attorney was substituted without notice to Jones-Blair, the new attorney sought to withdraw on the trial date citing lack of cooperation; the trial court allowed the withdrawal and entered a default judgment of $36,191 on the counterclaim. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the withdrawal violated ARCP Rule 64(b) and that Jones-Blair's intermittent contact and possible misunderstanding of the case status did not amount to the level of negligence that would bar relief under Rules 60 and 64, unlike in prior precedents such as Diebold.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved George Anthony Johnson, who was convicted of aggravated robbery and misdemeanor theft after an incident in which he entered an apartment, threatened and stabbed a resident with scissors, took property, and claimed to have a gun. Johnson appealed the denial of his motion for directed verdict, arguing that scissors do not qualify as a deadly weapon and that the evidence was insufficient to show he threatened physical force with a deadly weapon. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that scissors can cause death or serious injury and thus meet the statutory definition of a deadly weapon, and that the victim's testimony about the gun threat provided sufficient evidence to support the aggravated robbery charge under Arkansas law.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned David Ferrell's conviction for capital murder in the death of Paul Loyd and his sentence of life without parole. Ferrell appealed on multiple grounds, primarily challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction under the corpus delicti rule, which requires independent proof of a homicide beyond confessions, as well as the denial of mistrials for alleged improper comments on his right to remain silent. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence existed independent of the confessions, including the victim's remains with bullet holes and lead traces, shell casings matched to Ferrell's SKS rifle recovered from a lake, and witness testimony. It further ruled that the prosecutor's statements and a witness's remark did not merit mistrial under applicable standards and that no reversible errors appeared in the record.

criminal law

This case involved a challenge by a group seeking to qualify the Reform Party as a new political party in Arkansas for the 1996 election by submitting petitions with voter signatures to the Secretary of State. The central dispute concerned conflicting statutory deadlines for filing such petitions—one setting a January 2 deadline and another setting a May 7 deadline—with the group filing after the earlier date but claiming the later one applied, and also alleging violations of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The trial court ruled that the January 2 deadline controlled and rejected the claims, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed. The court reasoned that the January deadline best reflected legislative intent based on the history of the statutes, the need for adequate time to verify signatures, and consistency with other election-related deadlines that would be disrupted by a May filing. The civil rights claim was not reached as it depended on the deadline ruling.

electionscivil rights

The case involved Lynn Davis, who was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole for the death of his girlfriend's 23-month-old son, Michael, who suffered fatal injuries from shaking and abuse. Davis appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against him, two evidentiary rulings admitting testimony and photographs of prior abuse by Davis, and the denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis based on alleged misleading statements by a juror during voir dire. The court reviewed the detailed facts, including Davis's account of the events leading to the child's cardiac arrest and the medical evidence of homicide, and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. It upheld the evidentiary rulings as within the trial court's discretion and declined to extend error coram nobis to claims about juror responses during voir dire.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved husband and wife appellants who were convicted after a retrial of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia, receiving life sentences on the first two charges. The appellants challenged their convictions on multiple grounds, including sufficiency of the evidence for the possession charge, the validity of the nighttime search warrant, the admission of certain testimony and evidence, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during sentencing. The court addressed each issue in turn, finding substantial evidence to support the verdicts based on the quantity of drugs recovered and other physical evidence, determining that the search warrant affidavit provided adequate factual support under the totality of the circumstances, and concluding that no reversible errors occurred in evidentiary rulings or trial conduct. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in full.

criminal law

In Abernathy v. State, the appellant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder after beating his girlfriend to death and was sentenced to life imprisonment; he appealed on the ground that the trial court erred in admitting testimony about prior bad acts under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b). The court held that the most problematic evidence—a stepbrother’s account of the appellant shooting him in the legs and kicking him—was not sufficiently similar to the charged offense to be admissible for proving intent or absence of mistake. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the conviction because the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt, including the appellant’s own statements, an eyewitness account of his threats, physical evidence of cleanup, and the medical examiner’s testimony, all of which was accompanied by a limiting instruction. The court reviewed the evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion and applied harmless-error analysis.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an illegal-exaction lawsuit filed over a year after Sebastian County voters approved a one-cent sales-and-use tax in a 1994 special election, with the plaintiff claiming the tax violated the one-half of one percent limit in Article 16, § 9 of the Arkansas Constitution. The plaintiff also challenged the validity of the emergency clause in the ordinance calling the election and alleged various forms of election misconduct by county officials. The chancery court granted summary judgment to the county, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the constitutional limit applies only to ad valorem property taxes based on prior precedent, that no emergency clause was required to call the special election, and that the election-misconduct claims were barred by the 30-day statute of limitations under Ark. Code Ann. § 26-74-209(c).

taxeselectionsprocedure