Boose v. State
2017 Ark. App. 302
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Cody Boose was tried in Faulkner County for first-degree battery (against a law-enforcement officer) and a firearm enhancement after he shot Deputy Eugene Watlington during a no‑knock warrant execution. The possession charge was nolle prossed.
- Jury convicted Boose of first‑degree battery and found the victim was a law‑enforcement officer acting in the line of duty and that Boose employed a firearm; jury recommended 30 years for battery and 15 years for the firearm enhancement (total 45 years).
- Boose appealed, arguing (1) the jury instructions violated due process (Apprendi and strict‑liability concerns) and (2) the trial court erred by denying his Batson challenge to a peremptory strike of an African‑American juror.
- At trial Boose proffered a nonmodel instruction requiring the State to prove Boose knew (or reasonably should have known) the victim was a law‑enforcement officer; the court refused and used model instructions and a verdict form that separately asked the jury to find whether the victim was a law‑enforcement officer.
- The trial court overruled the Batson objection after the State gave a race‑neutral explanation (juror’s statements about counseling and interactions with law enforcement); Boose conceded the explanation was likely sufficient at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions violated Apprendi by not requiring jury to find victim was an officer beyond a reasonable doubt | Boose: model instruction omitted proving victim was an officer and thus the enhancement element was not submitted to jury as required by Apprendi | State: jury was instructed in its entirety and the verdict form required a beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt finding that the victim was a law‑enforcement officer | Affirmed — instructions read as a whole and the verdict form required the jury to find the officer status beyond a reasonable doubt, satisfying Apprendi |
| Whether statute/ instructions created a due‑process problem by making Class Y felony liability strict liability as to officer status (no scienter) | Boose: due process requires proof that defendant knew or reasonably should have known the victim was an officer before imposing Class Y punishment | State: statute requires mens rea for battery itself; subsection elevating felony class based on victim’s status contains no additional scienter requirement; Feola supports no knowledge requirement about victim’s status | Affirmed — statute does not require additional knowledge element; strict‑liability for victim’s status is permissible under cited precedent |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing Boose’s proffered nonmodel instruction | Boose: instruction necessary to avoid due‑process violation | State: nonmodel instruction misstated law; model instruction and verdict form were adequate | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing an instruction that was not an accurate statement of law |
| Whether the prosecutor exercised a Batson impermissible race‑based strike | Boose: struck juror S.W., an African‑American, raising Batson objection | State: offered race‑neutral reasons (juror’s counseling role and comments about law enforcement); trial record shows Boose conceded the explanation was "probably good enough" | Affirmed — trial court credited race‑neutral explanation; Boose failed to preserve any additional Batson arguments for appeal and did not meet burden to show purposeful discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (jury must find, beyond reasonable doubt, any fact that increases maximum punishment)
- United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (no requirement that attacker know victim is federal officer to trigger enhanced protection)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes; three‑step burden shifting)
- Vidos v. State, 367 Ark. 296 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for giving jury instructions)