Edward Thompson v. State of Arkansas
586 S.W.3d 615
Ark.2019Background:
- At a Little Rock nightclub, Edward Thompson and an accomplice attempted to rob Tyler Ratley; Tyler’s brother Keye chased them and was fatally shot; witnesses saw a red P.T. Cruiser reported stolen the day before.
- Police recovered the stolen P.T. Cruiser and found Thompson’s DNA inside; Tyler later identified Thompson in a photographic lineup.
- A jury convicted Thompson of first-degree felony murder (for robbery), aggravated robbery, felony theft, and misdemeanor theft; he received life plus 90 years; on direct appeal the court reversed the aggravated-robbery conviction for a verdict error and ordered resentencing.
- Thompson filed a timely Rule 37 petition pro se alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel under Strickland v. Washington; the circuit court denied relief and Thompson appealed.
- Trial counsel allegedly erred by failing to (1) contemporaneously object to Tyler’s in-court ID, (2) object to accomplice-liability jury instructions, (3) investigate or challenge surveillance videos, and (4) pursue redaction/hearing over character-related statements in a custodial statement; appellate counsel allegedly failed to raise the verdict error on appeal and to challenge sufficiency of evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to contemporaneously object to Tyler’s in-court identification | Thompson: counsel should have objected at trial to preserve due-process challenge to photo lineups | State: counsel moved pretrial to suppress and jury could assess reliability; no undue suggestiveness shown | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice—photo lineups not clearly unduly suggestive and in-court ID for jury to weigh |
| Failure to object to accomplice-liability jury instruction | Thompson: counsel should have objected because instruction improperly expanded liability | State: evidence (two perpetrators, eyewitness) supported instruction | No ineffective assistance; instruction was supported by evidence and objection would be meritless |
| Failure to investigate or object to vehicle surveillance videos | Thompson: videos did not conclusively show a red P.T. Cruiser; counsel should have enhanced videos or used an expert | State: Thompson offered no facts showing a viable objection; tactical choices are within counsel’s discretion | No ineffective assistance; conclusory claim and strategic decision, no prejudice shown |
| Failure to seek hearing/redaction of character evidence in custodial statement | Thompson: counsel should have sought redaction of statements about breaking into vehicles and theft to show propensity | State: prosecution agreed to redact prior sentences; remaining statements were relevant as motive/opportunity under Rule 404(b) | No ineffective assistance; statements independently relevant and admissible |
| Appellate counsel failed to raise the verdict error identified on Rule 4-3(i) review | Thompson: appellate counsel should have raised the verdict error and sought full resentencing | State: court corrected error on its own and resentenced; Thompson shows no prejudice from counsel’s omission | No ineffective assistance; any omission caused no prejudice because court corrected the error |
| Appellate counsel failed to challenge sufficiency of the evidence | Thompson: appellate counsel should have argued insufficient evidence for convictions | State: motions below did not preserve challenges to the convictions appealed and any sufficiency challenge would have been meritless | No ineffective assistance; waived or meritless, so no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (prejudice requires substantial—not merely conceivable—likelihood of a different result)
- King v. State, 916 S.W.2d 725 (Ark.) (pretrial identification due-process and reliability factors)
- Lee v. State, 308 S.W.3d 596 (Ark.) (right to effective assistance of counsel; Strickland applied in Arkansas)
- Liggins v. State, 505 S.W.3d 191 (Ark.) (Arkansas application of Strickland two-prong test)
- Milholland v. State, 893 S.W.2d 327 (Ark.) (identification after delay can be reliable)
- Vance v. State, 383 S.W.3d 325 (Ark.) (Rule 404(b) requires independent relevance such as motive or opportunity)
- Williams v. State, 435 S.W.3d 483 (Ark.) (appellate review of identification admissibility demands a very substantial likelihood of misidentification)