Latest 4 Cases: Beard v. State (Criminal Law), Halfacre v. Kelley (Criminal Law), Muhammad v. Kelley (Criminal Law)

The Investors’ Control of Their Investment Advisers. Who Has the Final Word?

TAMAR FRANKEL

BU Law emerita professor Tamar Frankel discusses an emerging issue affecting financial advisers—when a client may exercise control over the actions of the adviser. Frankel relates the story of an investment adviser that did not follow the client’s orders to cease certain investments, at a cost of almost $5 million to the client. As Frankel explains, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) got involved, resulting in the investment adviser’s settlement for a significant payment to the client and other conditions.

Read More

Beard v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 62

Opinion Date: February 13, 2020

Judge: Wynne

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of one count of rape and two counts of second-degree sexual assault and sentence of life imprisonment plus forty years, holding that the circuit court erred in overruling Defendant's objection when an investigator testified that she found the allegations of sexual abuse were true and that the victims were "very credible." On appeal, the State conceded that the circuit court erred in admitting the investigator's testimony about the victims' credibility. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the error was harmless. The Supreme Court held that where the victims' testimony was the only evidence supporting conviction it cannot be said that the circuit court's error in admitting the testimony was slight. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial.

Halfacre v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 60

Opinion Date: February 13, 2020

Judge: Josephine L. Hart

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in rejecting Appellant's petition. Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that his aggravated robbery convictions were invalid because the criminal statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutional. The circuit court rejected Appellant's argument. On appeal, Appellant further argued that the state habeas corpus statute is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the aggravated robbery statute does not violate the Arkansas Constitution; and (2) Appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of the habeas corpus statute is waived because it was not raised or ruled on below.

Muhammad v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 61

Opinion Date: February 13, 2020

Judge: Josephine L. Hart

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing Appellant's petition. In dismissing Appellant's petition the circuit court found that the petition was defective because Appellant had failed to attach a copy of his judgment and commitment order or provide a legal excuse for the omission and, further, that Petitioner's claim was without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that because Appellant's habeas petition failed to comply with the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-103(b) the circuit court properly dismissed the petition.

Weeks v. Thurston

Citation: 2020 Ark. 64

Opinion Date: February 13, 2020

Judge: Wynne

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court disqualifying district judge Adam Weeks from the ballot for the judicial office of the Third Judicial District, Division Three, Circuit Judge in the March 3, 2020 election, holding that a conviction under Ark. Code Ann. 27-14-306 does not require the finder of fact to find, or the defendant to admit, an act of deceit, fraud, or false statement. The circuit court removed Weeks' name from the ballot because he was previously convicted for violating the "fictitious tags" statute, section 27-14-306. At issue was whether the statute constitutes a misdemeanor offense in which the finder of fact was required to find an act of deceit, fraud, or false statement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a violation of section 27-14-306 did not require a finding of admission of deceit, fraud, or false statement, and therefore, Weeks was eligible to run for public office.