574 S.W.3d 201
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Fields was convicted by a Union County jury of aggravated robbery, multiple aggravated assaults with child enhancements, a terroristic act, and first-degree battery with a child enhancement; total sentence: 54 years, consecutive.
- One day before trial Fields moved in limine to exclude the victim Jennifer New's pretrial photo identification from internet/mugshot sources; the court denied the motion.
- At trial New made an in-court identification based on seeing Fields during the offense and later testified about having seen a photo online and photos shown by police; Fields did not contemporaneously object that the in-court ID was tainted.
- Fields raised a Batson challenge after the prosecutor used peremptory strikes against two African‑American prospective jurors; the prosecutor gave race‑neutral reasons and the court denied the challenge.
- Fields alleged prosecutorial misstatement of parole law during sentencing-phase closing, challenged the imposition of consecutive sentences, and sought coram nobis relief based on a third‑party confession (Turner) and alleged Brady withholding; the court denied relief on each ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fields) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pretrial photo ID/in‑court ID | Trial court erred in denying motion in limine to exclude New's prior photo ID as tainted | Motion in limine did not preserve objection to in‑court ID; Fields failed to contemporaneously object that in‑court ID was tainted | Not preserved; denial affirmed |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike | Prosecutor improperly struck African‑American jurors; strike was discriminatory | Prosecutor offered race‑neutral reasons (seated other African‑American jurors; juror hung on defense counsel's every word) | Court found prosecutor's reasons credible; Batson denial not clearly against preponderance of evidence |
| Prosecutor's sentencing‑phase closing (parole comments) | Prosecutor misstated parole law (told jury defendant would serve only minimums) and court should have intervened sua sponte | No contemporaneous objection; comments not so flagrantly prejudicial to trigger Wicks sua sponte duty | Issue not preserved; Wicks exception inapplicable; no reversible error |
| Consecutive sentencing | Court failed to exercise discretion and improperly imposed consecutive terms | Whether sentences run consecutively is within court's discretion; court solicited comments and considered sentencing | No abuse of discretion; court properly exercised authority to impose consecutive sentences |
| Coram nobis based on third‑party confession/Brady claim | New evidence: Turner later claimed Fields did not commit the shootings and named another shooter; State withheld evidence of codefendant identity | Turner's statements inconsistent, lacking credibility; no bona fide third‑party confession; conviction record intact | Court refused coram nobis relief; credibility determinations upheld and relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes)
- MacKintrush v. State, 334 Ark. 390 (Ark.) (sets three‑step Batson framework)
- Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 (Ark.) (narrow exceptions requiring trial court sua sponte correction for flagrant error)
- Pyle v. State, 340 Ark. 53 (Ark.) (consecutive v. concurrent sentencing is discretionary with trial court)
- Clark v. State, 358 Ark. 469 (Ark.) (coram nobis standards and deference to trial‑court credibility findings)