Elana Cunningham Wills

This case is an appeal by the Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct from a panel decision suspending attorney David Rees's law license for thirty days after finding he violated two provisions of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with his representation of client Tom Papachristou in criminal and civil matters, including a fee dispute over retainers totaling over $250,000. The director argued that the suspension was too lenient, that additional rule violations should have been found regarding dishonesty and improper client communications, and that other misconduct warranted greater sanctions. The court affirmed the panel's order in full, holding that the panel's findings were not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence and that several arguments, including alleged aggravating factors and a claim under Rule 1.15(c), were either not supported by the record or raised for the first time on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Johnson, the Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the State's appeal from a Benton County Circuit Court order dismissing felony charges against Jason Johnson for knowingly possessing material depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child. The circuit court enforced a pre-filing agreement in which the prosecutor offered to divert the case if Johnson obtained a psychiatric evaluation showing he lacked pedophilic traits; Johnson completed the evaluation at his own expense before the offer was revoked. Relying on Hammers v. State, the court concluded that once the offer was accepted and performed, Johnson was equitably entitled to enforcement of the agreement's terms, warranting dismissal of the charges rather than allowing the State to withdraw after detrimental reliance including the $300 cost and waiver of Fifth Amendment rights. The opinion also addressed the propriety of the State's appeal under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Criminal 3, determining it raised issues of uniform administration of criminal law.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether an Arkansas circuit court could impose conditions of incarceration, such as mandatory drug and alcohol treatment and testing at the defendant's expense, as part of a sentence following revocation of probation for Class C felony drug offenses. After multiple probation revocations, the circuit court sentenced Jeremy Richie to two concurrent ten-year terms in the Department of Correction and added the treatment conditions to the judgment and commitment order. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the circuit court lacked statutory authority to impose such conditions once it entered a judgment committing the defendant to the custody of the Department of Correction. The court reasoned that jurisdiction over conditions of incarceration transfers to the executive branch upon entry of the commitment order, and criminal statutes must be strictly construed to authorize only those sentences expressly permitted by law. The court reversed the imposition of the conditions and remanded for entry of a new judgment and commitment order.

criminal lawprocedure

In Williamson v. State, the defendant appealed his jury conviction for capital murder and life sentence without parole, arguing that the trial court should have granted his motion for a directed verdict because the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence identifying him as the perpetrator. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The court held that the directed-verdict motion was not preserved for appellate review because it was not made with the required specificity at the close of the State's case and at the close of all evidence, as mandated by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1. Even under the automatic review required for life sentences, the lack of a proper motion meant the sufficiency issue could not be considered on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved nine plaintiffs who sued AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals alleging that the company fraudulently marketed its Nexium drug as new and superior to its predecessor Prilosec, in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and other claims including common-law fraud, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act and Arkansas Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act. The Searcy County Circuit Court granted AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss the complaint under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim was barred by the statute’s safe harbor provision, that certain other statutes provided no private right of action, and that the remaining claims failed to allege sufficient facts showing false statements made to the plaintiffs or meeting the prima facie elements of the causes of action. The court did not reach the issue of federal preemption.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Anne Throneberry's challenge to consecutive prison sentences imposed for her convictions of manslaughter, kidnapping, and hindering apprehension in connection with her husband's 2004 death, after a prior remand for resentencing. The trial court had initially run the sentences consecutively rather than concurrently as the jury recommended, citing evidence from co-defendants' cases, which led the court of appeals to order resentencing without consideration of those improper factors. On remand, the trial court denied Throneberry's motion for discovery of sentencing factors, confirmed it would rely only on evidence from her own trial, and again imposed consecutive sentences without further elaboration. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a trial judge is not required to state specific reasons for choosing consecutive sentences and that the record showed the court had exercised its own discretion based solely on proper evidence. The court declined to address undeveloped constitutional claims.

criminal lawprocedure