Edison v. State, 2015 Ark. 376

Background

On Feb. 28, 2013, two men (Edison and co-defendant Bryant) entered the Sbarro at Park Plaza Mall; Edison produced a gun, demanded money, shot manager Christian Hayes (who died) and employee DeShaunte Thomas (who survived).
Edison was convicted of capital murder, attempted capital murder, and two counts of aggravated robbery; firearm enhancements increased the sentence to life without parole plus ten years.
Edison appealed three evidentiary rulings: (1) the court prevented further cross-examination about Thomas’s possible civil suit; (2) the court granted the State’s motion in limine precluding questioning Thomas about a medical-record notation suggesting possible hypoxic brain injury; and (3) the court admitted testimony by an officer recounting Thomas’s identification of Edison as a dying declaration.
Edison argued each ruling prejudiced his ability to impeach Thomas’s credibility/identification testimony.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed these evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and for prejudice, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Edison)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Cross-examination about Thomas’s retention of counsel/civil suit	Edison: Excluding questions about Thomas’s plan to sue prevented showing witness bias.	State: Thomas already admitted an attorney was retained and uncertainty about filing; further questioning was repetitive/irrelevant.	Court: No abuse — bias issues were placed before jury; trial court may limit repetitive questioning.
2. Inquiry about medical-record notation (possible hypoxic brain injury)	Edison: Notation relevant to Thomas’s mental state during ID and statements; exclusion impaired impeachment.	State: Notation not in evidence; Edison failed to proffer Thomas’s expected testimony about it.	Court: Issue not preserved — Edison failed to proffer; no showing of prejudice.
3. Admission of officer’s testimony as dying declaration	Edison: Officer’s recounting that Thomas identified Edison was inadmissible hearsay because dying-declaration elements not met.	State: Although it initially invoked dying-declaration, the testimony was admissible under other hearsay exceptions and was cumulative.	Court: Even if erroneous, testimony was cumulative of Thomas’s own in-court identification and harmless.
4. Overall prejudice from evidentiary rulings	Edison: Cumulative effect denied fair trial and requires reversal.	State: No prejudicial error; rulings within trial-court discretion and errors (if any) harmless.	Court: No prejudicial error found; affirmed judgment.

Key Cases Cited

Fritts v. State, 431 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2013) (evidentiary scope where sufficiency not contested)
Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 432 (Ark. 1998) (wide latitude to admit evidence of witness bias)
Jones v. State, 78 S.W.3d 104 (Ark. 2002) (scope of cross-examination extends to credibility)
Fowler v. State, 5 S.W.3d 10 (Ark. 1999) (bias almost always relevant to credibility)
Billett v. State, 877 S.W.2d 913 (Ark. 1994) (trial court’s discretion to limit cross-examination)
Gilcrease v. State, 318 S.W.3d 70 (Ark. 2009) (limits on cross-examination for harassment, repetition, prejudice)
Newman v. State, 939 S.W.2d 811 (Ark. 1997) (reasonable limits on cross-examination)
Birchett v. State, 741 S.W.2d 267 (Ark. 1987) (no abuse when matter sufficiently developed before jury)
Riley v. State, 2012 Ark. 462 (importance of proffer to review excluded evidence)
McEwing v. State, 237 S.W.3d 43 (Ark. 2006) (prejudice must be shown; not presumed)
Leaks v. State, 5 S.W.3d 448 (Ark. 1999) (need for proffer to show prejudice)
Roe v. State, 837 S.W.2d 474 (Ark. 1992) (failure to proffer precludes appellate review)
Dougan v. State, 957 S.W.2d 182 (Ark. 1997) (erroneous hearsay need not reverse when cumulative)
Weber v. State, 933 S.W.2d 370 (Ark. 1996) (cumulative evidence doctrine)
Wedgeworth v. State, 2012 Ark. 63 (no reversal absent prejudice)