Brooks v. State
2014 Ark. App. 84
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Walter Allen Brooks was charged with capital murder (death of Anna Mae Banks) and attempted capital murder (of Nathaniel Banks); jury convicted him of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder and sentenced to consecutive terms (80 and 50 years).
- On June 17, 2010, Anna Mae Banks was shot and killed in her carport; her husband saw a man wearing a do-rag, cap, sunglasses, and dark clothing who fired a pistol; a passerby identified a getaway vehicle leading police to Brooks and three related men in the car.
- Occupants of the vehicle included Earl Smith (driver), Kipp Doolittle, and Robert Brooks; Smith and Doolittle testified that Brooks paid them to drive to Widener and that Brooks walked to the Bankses’ house, fired a shot, and later said the gun jammed after killing the woman.
- Items (cap, do-rag, gloves, sunglasses, pistol) were recovered from Smith’s car/along the highway; forensic testing linked the pistol to a shell casing at the scene; DNA from gloves/do-rag excluded Brooks; police took Brooks’s DNA but not the others’ because they had identified Brooks as a suspect.
- Brooks argued sufficiency of evidence (claiming conviction rested on uncorroborated accomplice testimony), requested an accomplice instruction, and raised additional claims (directed verdict denial, admission of other-bad-acts evidence, mistrial for discovery-related volunteered testimony, and failure to instruct on second-degree murder).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brooks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency based on accomplice testimony | Evidence (including testimony, physical items, pistol linkage) suffices even if witnesses implicated others | Conviction rests on uncorroborated testimony of alleged accomplices (Smith, Doolittle) so insufficient | Not reached on merits; issue not preserved because accomplice status was never determined by court or jury |
| Refusal to instruct jury on accomplice status | No instruction required; witnesses were non-accomplices as presented | Jury should decide whether witnesses were accomplices, triggering corroboration requirement | Reversed: trial court erred in refusing the accomplice instruction; remand for retrial |
| Admission of other bad-act evidence | Such evidence was admissible to show intent or motive | Evidence prejudicial and inadmissible as other-acts | Not decided on appeal (likely to be addressed on retrial) |
| Failure to give second-degree murder lesser-included instructions | First-degree instructions appropriate; no need for second-degree | Jury should have been instructed on second-degree murder/attempted second-degree as lesser-included offenses | Not addressed (court declined to decide on this record due to retrial and likely change in witness status) |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 365 Ark. 25 (Ark.) (accomplice-status requirement for corroboration)
- Rockett v. State, 319 Ark. 335 (Ark.) (accomplice testimony and corroboration principles)
- Meadows v. State, 2012 Ark. 57 (Ark.) (explaining accomplice corroboration test and jury determination)
- Camp v. State, 2011 Ark. 155 (Ark.) (corroboration must be substantive and tend to connect defendant)
- MacKool v. State, 365 Ark. 416 (Ark.) (test whether remaining evidence independently connects accused)
- Parker v. State, 355 Ark. 639 (Ark.) (presence/proximity and association as corroborating factors)
- Andrews v. State, 344 Ark. 606 (Ark.) (discussion of joint participation and accomplice liability)