Camp v. State
381 S.W.3d 11
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Camp appeals his conviction for first-degree murder as an accomplice and life sentence; Surber and Hicks testified for the State about a conspiracy to murder Camp’s wife, Robin Camp, in Nashville, Arkansas.
- Camp allegedly directed Surber to kill Mrs. Camp; Hicks testified to her and Surber’s involvement and Camp’s control over the plan.
- The State presented circumstantial evidence including the murder weapon, cell-phone ping data, and witnesses stating Mrs. Camp feared for her life.
- A recorded conversation between Surber and Camp, and the recovery of the Dodge pickup truck with Camp’s papers, linked Camp to the crime.
- Camp challenged the sufficiency of evidence to corroborate accomplice testimony and the admissibility of a fellow inmate’s testimony about hiring to kill an accomplice.
- The trial court denied Camp’s directed-verdict motion and admitted 404(b) evidence; the court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration sufficiency for accomplice testimony | Camp contends accomplice testimony lacks corroboration | Camp argues remaining evidence insufficient to connect him | No reversible error; corroboration sufficient |
| Admissibility of Carter’s 404(b) testimony | Carter’s testimony shows consciousness of guilt | Evidence improper or prejudicial | Properly admitted under Rule 404(b) and not unduly prejudicial |
| Harmless-error review under Rule 4-3(i) | Rulings adverse to Camp warrant review | No prejudicial error found | No prejudicial error identified under Rule 4-3(i) |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. State, 2011 Ark. 33 (Ark. 2011) (sufficiency review for directed verdict on accomplice testimony)
- Tubbs v. State, 370 Ark. 47, 257 S.W.3d 47 (Ark. 2007) (standard of review for sufficiency and corroboration)
- MacKool v. State, 365 Ark. 416, 231 S.W.3d 676 (Ark. 2006) (corroboration requirements for accomplice testimony)
- Barnett v. State, 346 Ark. 11, 53 S.W.3d 527 (Ark. 2001) (use of pre- or post-crime conduct as corroboration)
- Green v. State, 365 Ark. 478, 231 S.W.3d 638 (Ark. 2006) (Rule 404(b) relevance and independent probative value)
- Banks v. State, 2010 Ark. 108, 366 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. 2010) (consciousness-of-guilt as admissible Rule 404(b) evidence)
- Lamb v. State, 372 Ark. 277, 275 S.W.3d 144 (Ark. 2008) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)