Campbell v. State
432 S.W.3d 673
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Campbell was charged with first-degree terroristic threatening and aggravated assault; convicted of the former and acquitted of the latter; six-year suspended imposition and $1,000 restitution were ordered.
- Incident arose from Campbell’s actions toward his wife’s former Taco Bell supervisors after she was fired, including driving toward them at high speed, a neck-slashing gesture, and a message that someone would die that night.
- Campbell challenged only the denial of his new-trial motion (juror misconduct and witness-exclusion issues), requested a lesser-included instruction, and sought admonishment for alleged prosecutorial misconduct; he did not challenge sufficiency of the evidence.
- The trial court’s handling included Rule 606(b) limitations on juror testimony and a ruling that a juror’s professional background does not constitute extraneous prejudicial information.
- The court refused to allow attorney Boyd to testify at the new-trial hearing, citing ethical rules and discretionary evidentiary decisions.
- The court refused Campbell’s request for a lesser-included instruction on second-degree terroristic threatening, finding no rational basis to acquit first-degree and convict on the lesser offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct and Rule 606(b) | Campbell argues extraneous information tainted deliberations. | State contends no admissible extraneous information affected verdict. | No reversible error; no admissible extraneous information found. |
| Witness exclusion of attorney testimony | Boyd should testify as rebuttal witness at new-trial hearing. | Attorney cannot testify as witness; court did not abuse discretion. | No abuse of discretion; attorney testimony properly excluded. |
| Lesser-included offense instruction | Second-degree terroristic threatening should have been instructed. | No rational basis to convict on lesser offense. | Instruction not required; no abuse of discretion. |
| Mistrial/admonishment under Wicks | Prosecutor’s inflammatory remarks and misstatement required admonition or mistrial. | Wicks exception applies; arguments were not preserved for review. | Not preserved; Wicks exception not applicable; no admonition or mistrial ordered. |
| Cumulative error | Cumulative errors warrant remand for retrial. | No reversible errors exist; no cumulative error. | No cumulative error; affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. State, 363 Ark. 254 (2005) (burden to show prejudice from juror misconduct)
- Milner v. Luttrell, 384 S.W.3d 5 (Ark. App. 2011) (juror’s professional knowledge not extraneous prejudicial information)
- Arnold v. State, 2012 Ark. 400 (Ark. 2012) (Rule 606(b) testimony about juror understanding of instructions is prohibited)
- Veasey v. State, 637 S.W.2d 545 (Ark. 1982) (Rule 606(b) juror testimony limits)
- Lard v. State, 2014 Ark. 1 (Ark. 2014) (Wicks exception; rarely used for structural trial errors)
- Dixon v. State, 385 S.W.3d 164 (Ark. 2011) (preservation requirements for error review)