Cliff Hoofman

This case involved Richard Dean Bailey's appeal of his second-degree murder conviction from a Garland County jury, which sentenced him to 360 months in prison. Bailey contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the state's evidence was insufficient to disprove his justification defense under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-607. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that evidence of Bailey's flight, disposal of clothing and the weapon, failure to contact law enforcement, and a cellmate's testimony that the stabbing occurred during an attempted robbery provided sufficient basis for the jury to reject the justification claim. The court noted that credibility determinations and resolution of conflicting evidence are for the jury.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute among seven grandchildren over the division of a 40-acre parcel of real property in Perry County, along with cattle and farm equipment, that had belonged to their grandfather who died intestate in 1972. The circuit court entered a partition order directing that the land and cattle be divided equally among the parties, with a public sale if they could not agree within 21 days, appointed a commissioner to handle the sale, and found insufficient evidence regarding ownership of the farm equipment. Appellants and appellees both appealed from this order, raising issues about the distribution shares, credits for services rendered, and the equipment determination. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal without prejudice, holding that the partition order was not final and appealable because Arkansas precedent requires an order confirming the sale of the property before an appeal may be taken, and no Rule 54(b) certification was issued.

propertyprocedure

Adam Alexander sued Eastern Tank Services alleging unlawful termination in violation of the ADA, ACRA, and GINA, claiming his discharge was motivated by a perceived disability (Asperger’s Syndrome) or genetic information after he disclosed therapy and possible diagnosis to his employer. The employer moved for summary judgment, asserting the layoff was due to reduced business needs and lack of seniority, with the decision predating any disability disclosure. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the employer and denied Alexander’s requests for additional time to respond or complete discovery. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of further discovery and the summary judgment ruling on the GINA claim but reversed and remanded the ADA and ACRA claims for proper analysis of whether genuine issues of material fact remained regarding discriminatory motivation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Valencia v. State, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the revocation of Erica Valencia's suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) after she pleaded guilty to theft of property and attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud. The State petitioned to revoke based on her failure to complete ordered community service and make required restitution payments, and the trial court found her in violation, sentencing her to 72 months' imprisonment and 48 months' SIS to run consecutively. Valencia argued on appeal that the revocation was improper because the terms and conditions of her SIS were not properly documented or served. The court affirmed the revocation, holding that the sentencing order included the conditions and that the evidence of noncompliance was sufficient, but modified the sentence to run concurrently to comply with Arkansas sentencing statutes. The decision was based on a preponderance of the evidence standard for revocations and statutory limits on consecutive sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hinson v. State, Mack Hinson was convicted by a jury of negligent homicide after a fatal three-vehicle accident and sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. He appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the results of a warrantless blood-alcohol test, arguing that his consent was not voluntary because he was not advised of his right to refuse and that the draw violated the Fourth Amendment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-65-208 mandates chemical testing in accidents involving loss of life and that Hinson had consented to the blood draw at the scene without the statute requiring advisement of refusal rights. The court found the officer's compliance with the statute and Hinson's consent sufficient to uphold the denial of the suppression motion.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nelson v. State, a seventeen-year-old defendant charged as an adult with four counts of raping his eleven-year-old cousin sought to transfer his case to juvenile court or obtain extended juvenile jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the motion after a hearing that included testimony on the defendant's prior juvenile delinquency record, probation history, intellectual disability, low academic functioning, and awareness of right and wrong. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court had properly weighed the statutory factors under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318 and that its decision was not clearly erroneous. The court emphasized the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's planning and prior offenses, and the limited time available for rehabilitation before age twenty-one.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law