Curl v. State
2019 Ark. App. 200
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Jan. 3, 2017, Joshua Curl and his fiancée drove back from a funeral with the victim, Michael Gimondo; an altercation occurred at Derrek Curl’s property after a phone exchange.
- Michael threatened Derrek and then advanced toward Joshua’s vehicle; Joshua fired a warning shot and then shot Michael multiple times, killing him.
- Joshua was initially charged with second-degree murder (Jan. 24, 2017); an amended information (Oct. 27, 2017) upgraded the charge to first-degree murder and added a firearm enhancement.
- Trial court denied defendant’s motion to quash the amended information; trial proceeded and a jury convicted Joshua of first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement.
- On appeal, Joshua argued (1) the State failed to negate his justification defense and (2) the amended information should have been quashed as prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to negate justification | State: evidence supported conviction; justification not shown | Curl: evidence insufficient because State failed to negate justification | Not preserved on appeal — Curl failed to renew directed-verdict motion at close of all evidence; claim waived |
| Validity of amended information / prejudice | State: amendment provided adequate notice (filed 45 days before trial) and defendant not prejudiced | Curl: amendment to first-degree murder and firearm enhancement was prejudicial because counsel prepared for second-degree murder | Denial of motion to quash affirmed — no prejudice shown; amendment timely in practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickey v. State, 483 S.W.3d 287 (Ark. 2016) (Rule 33.1 requires directed-verdict motions at close of State’s case and again at close of all evidence to preserve sufficiency claim)
- Draft v. State, 489 S.W.3d 712 (Ark. App. 2016) (same preservation principle)
- Hoover v. State, 108 S.W.3d 618 (Ark. 2003) (prejudice not presumed when defendant is put on notice of an amendment and fails to move for continuance)
- Holloway v. State, 849 S.W.2d 473 (Ark. 1993) (conviction will not be reversed absent a showing of prejudice from an amendment)