389 S.W.3d 47
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cornett was convicted by a Washington County jury of eight counts of terroristic threatening (and eight counts of aggravated assault, with acquittals on the latter).
- The charged events occurred at a Littrell family Labor Day barbecue on September 4, 2010, involving a dispute over vehicles on Cornett's grandfather's property.
- Cornett threatened to defend his land, retrieved a gun, and displayed it toward partygoers; witnesses described conflicting conduct regarding waving or aiming the weapon.
- Donnie Littrell reported to 911 that Cornett had a pistol, while the defense later introduced a second 911 recording during trial; the defense had previously sought discovery of that recording.
- Defense argued the State failed to disclose the second 911 recording, seeking mistrial or continuance as sanctions; the court denied both, but allowed the tape into evidence.
- Cornett proposed a justification instruction; the court gave one for aggravated assault but not for terroristic threatening, and defense failed to timely object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery violation prejudiced Cornett | Cornett | Cornett | No reversible prejudice; failure to disclose did not undermine trial |
| Whether denial of mistrial/continuance for discovery error was an abuse of discretion | Cornett | Cornett | No abuse; prejudice not shown; remain within court's discretion |
| Whether the failure to give a justification instruction on terroristic threats was preserved | Cornett | Cornett | Waived due to lack of timely objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrow v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 589 (Ark. App. 2010) (sanctions for discovery violations depend on abuse of discretion)
- Robinson v. State, 317 Ark. 512 (Ark. 1994) (prejudice required for reversible discovery error)
- Lacy v. State, 272 Ark. 333 (Ark. 1981) (knowledge imputation to prosecutor for discovery purposes)
- Bridges v. State, 327 Ark. 392 (Ark. 1997) (timely objection required to preserve jury-instruction error)
- Halliday v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 544 (Ark. App. 2011) (objection timing governs preservation of jury-instruction issues)