Carter v. State
2017 Ark. 27
| Ark. | 2017Background
- In 2008 Edward Carter was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 360 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Carter filed multiple pro se petitions asking this Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so he could pursue a writ of error coram nobis; two prior petitions were denied.
- Carter’s coram nobis petitions principally alleged Brady violations and newly discovered evidence (obtained via a FOIA request) showing witness falsehoods, a different gun, lack of fingerprints, missing video, and suppressed pretrial statements.
- Trial evidence: Wal‑Mart shopper Salli Reding observed Carter with video games; when confronted outside the store Carter allegedly produced and cocked a gun; another shopper and Carter’s companion Jessica Brewer also testified seeing a gun; Carter sold the games afterward.
- The Court treated most of Carter’s contentions as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence or trial error, rather than as properly pleaded Brady or fundamental‑error coram nobis claims.
- The Court denied the third petition (and Carter’s motion to file a response was rendered moot) because Carter failed to show suppressed, material evidence or a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief is warranted based on alleged Brady suppression of evidence | Carter: State withheld exculpatory/impeachment material (pretrial statements, narratives, photos, video, fingerprints) that would have changed the trial result | State: No specific factual proof that particular material was suppressed; claims attack trial evidence/credibility not suppression | Denied — petitioner failed to substantiate suppression or show reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether newly discovered evidence (FOIA materials) justifies coram nobis | Carter: FOIA documents show different gun, no fingerprints, Brewer didn’t enter store, undermining testimony and probable cause for warrant | State: Newly discovered evidence alone does not establish fundamental error; petitioner must show it would likely have prevented conviction | Denied — newly discovered information did not demonstrate reasonable probability of a different result |
| Whether allegations that a witness gave false trial testimony require coram nobis relief | Carter: Brewer and Reding gave false or perjured testimony that caused conviction | State: Alleged witness falsehoods are challenges to credibility/sufficiency and belong on direct appeal/trial | Denied — false‑testimony allegations without proof do not establish coram nobis grounds |
| Whether insufficiency of evidence or trial error can be relitigated via coram nobis | Carter: Trial lacked proof of theft and aggravated robbery; procedural/arraignment defects and absence of Wal‑Mart manager testimony | State: Sufficiency and trial‑error claims are not cognizable in coram nobis; those issues are for trial/direct appeal | Denied — coram nobis is not a substitute for direct appeal; sufficiency/trial error not reviewable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Brady duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (elements of Brady claim and reasonable‑probability standard)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (impeachment evidence falls within Brady)
- State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397 (coram nobis is an extraordinary, rarely granted remedy)