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evaluation showing he lacked pedophilic traits; Johnson completed the evaluation at his own expense before the offer was revoked.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

This case involves an appeal by the Arkansas Department of Human Services from a circuit court's permanency-planning order in a dependency-neglect proceeding concerning Tammy Denmon's three children. The circuit court awarded permanent custody to the children's aunt while maintaining reunification as the case goal and ordered DHS to place Denmon at a specific facility for services. The Supreme Court determined that the order was not final and appealable due to its conflicting goals and that the specific placement directive violated statutory limits on court authority over DHS services. Consequently, the court denied a writ of prohibition, granted a writ of certiorari to quash the improper order, and dismissed the appeal.

family lawprocedure

In Rollins v. State, appellant Vance Rollins was convicted by a jury of two counts of manslaughter after causing a head-on collision that killed two people, and he was sentenced to consecutive prison terms. The court of appeals modified the judgment to negligent homicide on grounds of insufficient evidence of recklessness, but the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and reinstated the manslaughter convictions. The court held that substantial evidence supported a finding of reckless conduct under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-104(a)(3), including testimony that Rollins had been tailgating erratically for miles, drove in the oncoming lane, failed to swerve or slow down before impact, and had cocaine in his system that the jury could infer affected his driving. The court emphasized that intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and attendant circumstances, rejecting arguments that the proof amounted only to speculation or conjecture.

criminal law

In Pollard v. State, a Crittenden County jury convicted Courtney Pollard of first-degree murder and criminal use of a prohibited weapon after he shot and killed Marvin Banks. Pollard appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on manslaughter as a lesser-included offense and by denying a mistrial due to a violation of the witness sequestration rule under Ark. R. Evid. 615. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that there was no rational basis for the manslaughter instruction because the evidence did not show adequate provocation for extreme emotional disturbance. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the mistrial, as the trial judge had permitted cross-examination to address the sequestration issue and other remedies were available.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an Arkansas tax audit of Bryce Company, a packaging manufacturer, to determine whether its purchases of stickyback tape used to attach printing plates during production qualified for an exemption from gross receipts taxes as manufacturing machinery or equipment under Ark. Code Ann. § 26-52-402 and related rules. The circuit court ruled in Bryce's favor after a bench trial, finding the tape met the statutory definition of exempt equipment. On de novo review, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tape was directly used in the manufacturing process because it was essential to attaching plates to cylinders and the printing could not occur without it. The court noted that Bryce's evidence satisfied the applicable burden of proof for the exemption claim.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In Adams v. State, a White County jury convicted Billy Terrell Adams of capital murder for shooting Charles Cunningham with a shotgun after a fight, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Adams appealed, raising issues including the trial court's handling of a juror poll for unanimity, refusal to strike a juror for cause, denial of directed verdict motions based on insufficient evidence of premeditation, and rejection of certain jury instructions. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, first addressing the sufficiency challenge and finding substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation from eyewitness accounts of Adams retrieving and firing the weapon, the nature of the fatal wounds, and other conduct, despite expert testimony on mental disease or defect. The court noted that the jury was not required to accept the defense expert's opinion on lack of intent and that other asserted errors lacked merit or were not preserved.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether an Arkansas court could require a former Pennsylvania co-guardian, Jean Hetman, to provide a full accounting of her mother's estate for the years 2000-2006 after the guardianship was terminated in Pennsylvania and a new one established in Arkansas for Annamarie Schwade. Schwade petitioned the Carroll County Circuit Court for an accounting, alleging Hetman had made over $30,000 in questionable expenditures while she alone had check-signing authority. Hetman objected, arguing the Arkansas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over prior Pennsylvania proceedings and could not compel an accounting from a non-Arkansas guardian, also raising res judicata. The circuit court found it had personal jurisdiction over Hetman because she had appeared and sought affirmative relief, and therefore could order the accounting for all years; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed on de novo review, holding that acceptance of the guardianship and submission to jurisdiction allowed the order under state statutes. The decision turned on the scope of personal jurisdiction and the court's authority over former guardians once it accepted the case.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether statements and evidence, including approximately 300 pounds of marijuana, obtained after a traffic stop should be suppressed in a prosecution for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the motion to suppress and reversed the court of appeals, holding that the initial traffic stop was lawful. Sergeant Drown had probable cause to stop the vehicle because its license plate cover obscured the name of the issuing state in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 27-14-716, a statute the court determined applies to both resident and nonresident vehicles traveling on Arkansas roads. The court rejected arguments that the stop was based on a mistake of law, finding that the officer's observation of the obscured state name provided an objective basis for the stop under the totality of the circumstances. The defendant's additional claim that the stop was unlawfully prolonged was not ruled on below and thus not preserved for review.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an interlocutory appeal from a trial court order certifying a class action in which injured parties who had settled claims with Union Pacific Railroad alleged that the railroad and its employees used fraudulent misrepresentations and the unauthorized practice of law to induce low-value settlements in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the certification, concluding that individual issues of reliance, causation, and the unique facts of each negotiation predominated over any common questions. The majority reasoned that the plaintiffs' claims turned on oral, case-specific discussions rather than a uniform course of conduct that could be litigated on a class-wide basis.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved whether the circuit court properly revoked appellant Seamster’s ten-year suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for first-degree sexual abuse after he failed to complete the Reduction of Sexual Victimization Program (RSVP) while serving a concurrent six-year prison term on a second count. Seamster had signed plea documents agreeing to enroll in and complete RSVP before release from the Arkansas Department of Correction and to participate in any recommended aftercare. The circuit court found the violation and imposed an additional six-year sentence; the court of appeals reversed, holding that RSVP was solely a condition of incarceration. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the revocation, ruling that the RSVP requirement was a valid condition of the SIS under the plea agreement and sentencing order, that the suspension period ran concurrently with imprisonment, and that the circuit court’s findings were not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

criminal law

In this case, Clarence Richardson was charged with theft and, after a jury trial resulted in guilty verdicts, he made an oral motion for a new trial before any judgment was entered, citing the denial of his jury waiver request and issues with jury deliberations. The circuit court granted the motion, but the State appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the motion was premature and ineffective under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.3 because no judgment and commitment order had been entered, rendering the trial court's order granting a new trial a nullity with no provision in the criminal rules for sua sponte new trials. As a result, there was no valid appealable order, and the State's appeal was dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved dissenting minority shareholders in Farmers Bank who challenged the Bank Commissioner's decision not to award interest on the value of their shares for the period between the approval of a plan of exchange and the final appraisal valuation. The Commissioner determined that Ark. Code Ann. § 23-48-603 does not authorize such an award because the statute only addresses the valuation of shares and is silent on interest. The circuit court upheld the Commissioner's decision, and upon review, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agency's interpretation of the unambiguous statute was not clearly wrong and that judicial review under the APA did not permit reversal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an original action for the disbarment of attorney Woodson D. Walker, initiated by the Executive Director of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct following client complaints and other allegations of misconduct. The petitions alleged dozens of violations of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including issues with client matters, improper use of a trust account, failure to maintain malpractice insurance, and practicing while under suspension; Walker challenged the filing of amended petitions adding new counts but the special judge denied the motion to strike, granted default judgments on unanswered amendments, and imposed disbarment after weighing sanction factors under the Procedures Regulating Professional Conduct. The court affirmed, holding that amended petitions were permissible under the applicable rules, that defaults were properly entered, and that disbarment was the appropriate sanction to protect the public and the administration of justice.

procedure

The case arose from a lawsuit filed by two students against a teacher and school superintendent alleging battery after a classroom incident in the Forrest City School District. The circuit court granted a default judgment against the superintendent for an untimely answer and awarded damages after a hearing, rejecting immunity arguments due to lack of proof regarding insurance coverage. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court addressed whether the plaintiffs' failure to allege the existence of liability insurance meant that statutory immunity under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-301 barred the suit and deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, rendering the default judgment void. The court held that without such an allegation, no cause of action was stated, immunity could not be waived by default, and the judgment was null and void.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Warren Law's conviction for abusing an adult by neglecting his elderly mother, Geneva Law, who was found in squalid conditions with injuries. The circuit court convicted him after a bench trial under the Arkansas adult abuse statute, sentencing him to five years' imprisonment with three years suspended. On appeal, Law challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that his mother was an endangered or impaired adult, that he was her caregiver, and that he neglected her, as well as the constitutionality of the statute. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence supported each element, including that Law assumed responsibility for her care and failed to provide necessary care leading to her condition.

criminal law