George Rose Smith

This case involves the division of property in a divorce between James and Connie Canady under Arkansas marital-property law, following a prior remand for specific findings on assets such as a homeplace, a dairy operation, a 20-acre tract, and a truck, where both parties had brought premarital property and made contributions during their six-year marriage. The chancellor ordered sales of properties and an equitable distribution, including equal division of certain marital assets and recognition of $35,115 in Connie's contributions to real property, while returning James's premarital interests with adjustments. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the decree, holding that the statute (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214) prioritizes an equitable outcome over strict equal division or precise tracing of funds, allowing the trial court flexibility based on factors like length of marriage, contributions, and future needs, without requiring an accounting for business uses of marital funds. The court noted that the chancellor's approach achieved an equitable result consistent with the law's intent.

family lawproperty

In West v. State, the appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse based on the 15-year-old prosecutrix's testimony that the defendant, a minister, picked her up, drove her to a remote area, and touched her breast without consent. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court erred in granting the state's motion in limine to exclude evidence that the prosecutrix had made similar accusations against two other men on prior occasions, which the defense sought to introduce on cross-examination to challenge her credibility. The court reasoned that such evidence of prior accusations, if false, is relevant to the victim's credibility in sexual offense cases and should have been admissible. Although the court discussed the element of forcible compulsion under the statute, the reversal was based solely on the evidentiary ruling regarding the prior accusations.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a medical malpractice suit brought by the wife of a patient who suffered a permanent brain injury after a neurosurgeon delayed ordering a CT scan following a head injury. After a jury verdict for the defendants, the sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by permitting a family physician to testify as an expert on the standard of care for deciding whether to order an emergency CT scan. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the malpractice statute incorporates Evidence Rule 702 and allows a qualified general practitioner to opine on such auxiliary diagnostic decisions even when the defendant is a specialist, provided the witness demonstrates relevant knowledge through education, experience, and practice. The court emphasized that the testimony concerned a threshold decision within the family doctor's own area of expertise rather than the performance of neurosurgery itself.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case involved the conviction of appellant Ricarte for three counts of aggravated robbery, three counts of kidnapping, and two counts of theft as an habitual criminal with ten prior convictions, resulting in consecutive sentences including life imprisonment. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the convictions because the trial court permitted Ricarte's wife, whom he married three days before trial, to testify against him over objection. The court reasoned that the Uniform Rules of Evidence had not been validly adopted by the legislature, leaving in place the 1943 statute that barred one spouse from being called to testify against the other in a criminal case without exception for the timing of the marriage, though the court adopted the Uniform Rules prospectively under its own rulemaking power.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of appellant George Lasiter for raping his eight-year-old niece six times, resulting in six concurrent life sentences. Lasiter appealed the denial of a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to the introduction of inadmissible evidence that Lasiter had previously raped his own daughter. The court determined that counsel's performance was deficient under the standards from Mason v. State, as the prior-bad-acts testimony was clearly inadmissible and highly prejudicial. Because there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed without the unobjected-to evidence, the convictions were reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Mike Wall, who was charged with rape for engaging in sexual acts with his ten-year-old stepdaughter, including fondling and oral sex. The jury convicted him and imposed a sentence of 40 years imprisonment. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the trial judge properly denied funds for additional psychiatric experts because the state hospital examination found no basis for an insanity defense and the defendant made no showing that his sanity was seriously in question. The court also upheld the admission of the defendant's voluntary confession and references to prior similar conduct with the victim, as such evidence would have been admissible at trial.

criminal law