Latest 6 Cases: Garcia-Chicol v. State (Civil Rights), Finney v. Kelley (Criminal Law), Gardner v. State (Criminal Law)

Bringing Home the Supply Chain

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JONATHAN F. HARRIS

NYU law professors Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan F. Harris describe how the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing the United States to confront the problem of unchecked globalization. Estreicher and Harris argue that once the pandemic subsides, U.S. policymakers should, as a matter of national security, mandate that a minimum percentage of essential supplies be manufactured domestically.

Read More

Unconstitutional Chaos: Abortion in the Time of COVID-19

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, MARY ZIEGLER

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler discuss the abortion bans implemented in several states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Grossman and Ziegler explain why the bans are constitutional and comment on the connection between the legal challenges to those bans and the broader fight over abortion rights.

Read More

Garcia-Chicol v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 148

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion for mistrial, holding that the circuit court's decision to admit into evidence a translation of a letter Defendant wrote in Spanish did not violate Ark. R. Evid. 1009 or Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Defendant was convicted of rape. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no reversible error as a result of the bailiff's response to the jury foreman's question regarding the verdict forms, which resulted in the foreman mistakenly signing the forms for both rape and attempted rape, as shown by polling the members of the jury individually; and (2) Defendant did not have a constitutional right to confrontation because the translated statements were attributable to Defendant and, therefore, nontestimonial, and the accompanying affidavit to the letter substantially complied with Rule 1009.

Finney v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 145

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Baker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant stated no ground in the petition on which the writ could issue. Appellant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Arkansas Department of Correction miscalculated his parole-eligibility status and that, therefore, the judgment of conviction was void. Appellant further alleged that he was unaware when he entered his guilty plea that his prior conviction for aggravated robbery would result in him not being eligible for parole. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's parole eligibility claims were not cognizable in this habeas proceeding; and (2) Appellant's challenge to his guilty plea was not within the purview of a writ of habeas corpus.

Gardner v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 147

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of capital murder and sentence of death, holding that the circuit court did not err. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in refusing to allow Defendant to represent himself where Defendant's request to self-representation was not unequivocal; (2) the circuit court did not err in refusing to give Defendant's non-model instruction stating that the jury had the option of extending mercy in assessing his punishment; and (3) the circuit court did not err in including two aggravated circumstances jury instructions offered by the State.

Proctor v. Payne

Citation: 2020 Ark. 142

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that because Appellant did not establish either that the sentencing orders implicated the jurisdiction of the circuit court or that they were facially invalid, the circuit court did not err in denying the petition. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition on the basis that Appellant had previously raised the same arguments in a prior habeas petition. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the circuit court clearly erred in determining that Appellant's Fair Sentencing of Minors Act claims were previously considered, but because Appellant's challenge was to his parole eligibility, he failed to establish that the writ should issue; and (2) Appellant's argument that his sentence was a grossly disproportionate punishment was not cognizable in a writ of habeas corpus.

Rickman v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 138

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of rape, one count of kidnapping, and other offenses, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress, denying Defendant's proffered jury instructions, or allowing Defendant to plead guilty over the State's objection. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress his custodial statement; (2) under the circumstances, the circuit court did not err in rejecting Defendant's proffered jury instructions on Class B felony kidnapping and on concurrent or consecutive sentencing; and (3) the circuit court did not err in refusing to accept Defendant's guilty plea when the prosecutor objected.

White County Judge v. Menser

Citation: 2020 Ark. 140

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court reversed the vacated the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission affirming and adopting the findings of the administrative law judge (ALJ) awarding an additional-benefits claim to Bruce Menser, holding that Menser's additional-benefits claim was time barred by the statute of limitations. At the time Menser requested a hearing before the Commission, he was receiving workers' compensation benefits. The ALJ found that Menser sustained compensable brain and neuropathy injuries during the course and scope of his employment and that the statute of limitations did not bar Menser's claim for additional medical benefits because it had been tolled. The Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ's decision. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission erred in determining that Menser's claim for additional medical benefits sufficiently tolled the statute of limitations, and to the extent that Arkansas case law does not comport with this holding, those cases are overruled.