Latest 6 Cases: Muhammad v. State (Civil Rights), Roberts v. State (Civil Rights), Agents Mutual Insurance Co. v. Benham (Class Action)

Should Animals Be Allowed to Sue?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on case in which Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) brought a civil damages suit on behalf of an abused horse, now named Justice, against the horse’s former owner. Colb dismantles three arguments critics raise in opposition to recognizing abused animals as plaintiffs in lawsuits such as this one.

Read More

Muhammad v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 47

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Wynne

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101, holding that Appellant stated no basis for the writ. Appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder, attempted capital murder, and unlawful discharge of a firearm. Appellant later filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the State lacked jurisdiction to try him for the offenses because they were referred to as "international terrorism" committed by a "foreign terrorist organization" and that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the fact that Appellant's conduct could have been charged as a crime under a federal statute did not prohibit the State from trying him in state court; and (2) Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not cognizable as a ground for the writ.

Roberts v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 45

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Wynne

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's amended petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's order denying Rule 37 relief. Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Numerous proceedings followed. This appeal concerned Defendant's petition for postconviction relief. The circuit court entered an order denying Defendant relief on every claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no deficient performance by trial counsel under the Strickland standard; (2) the circuit court did not err in denying relief on the issue of Defendant's competency to stand trial; (3) Defendant's claim of juror misconduct was not cognizable in this postconviction proceeding; and (4) Defendant's remaining claims did not warrant reversal of his convictions.

Agents Mutual Insurance Co. v. Benham

Citation: 2020 Ark. 39

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Class Action

On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court remanded this matter involving the circuit court's grant of Plaintiff's motion for class certification and denying, in part, Defendant's objections and motion for protective order, holding that the circuit court's order granting class certification failed to comply with the mandatory requirements contained in Ark. R. Civ. P. 23(b). The Supreme Court remanded the matter without addressing the merits of the class certification and, further, did not address Defendant's claim regarding the protective order. Specifically, the Court held (1) the circuit court's order did not comply with Rule 23(b)'s requirements to define the "class claims, issues or defenses"; and (2) because the order granting class certification failed to comply with Rule 23(b), the order was not a final, appealable order. The Court then remanded the matter with instructions to enter an order that complied with Rule 23.

Grubbs v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 42

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court refusing to instruct the jury on two instructions proffered by Defendant at a resentencing hearing, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion. Defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time of the offense, pled guilty to capital murder. After Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), was decided, it was determined that Defendant should be resentenced by a jury. After a resentencing hearing, the jury imposed a sentence of life in prison. Defendant appealed, challenging the circuit court's rejection of two jury forms proffered by Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the requested jury instructions.

Millsap v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 38

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition and amended petition to correct an illegal sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that Appellant did not establish that his sentence was illegal. Appellant plead guilty to capital murder, first-degree terroristic threatening, and second-degree battery. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction. In this petition, Appellant argued that his sentence of life without parole was (1) illegal on its face because Ark. Code Ann. 16-89-108(b) provides that in cases in which the death penalty has been waived punishment could not be fixed at more than life imprisonment, and (2) was facially illegal because he signed the plea agreement before he entered his guilty plea but he did not initial each item on the agreement. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's sentence was a legal sentence.

Rayfield v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 40

Opinion Date: January 30, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying Defendant's petition for scientific testing of evidence, holding that the circuit court's decision denying the petition was not clearly erroneous. Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated assault, and related convictions. Defendant later filed a petition under Ark. Code. Ann. 16-112-201 through 208 seeking further scientific testing of the vaginal swab collected from the victim. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where Ark. Code. Ann. 16-112-201 through 208 is the codification of Act 1780 of 2001 the circuit court did not err in applying Act 1780; (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's petition on the merits; and (3) the circuit court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the petition.