Fincham v. State
2013 Ark. 204
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Fincham was convicted in Pulaski County of first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse; sentenced to life imprisonment under Arkansas law.
- Fincham appeals under Rule 1-2(a)(2) challenging the jury instructions related to lesser-included offenses.
- The State used the standard AMI Crim.2d 301 introductory instruction and AMI Crim.2d 302 transitional instruction; Fincham proffered an alternative to AMI 301.
- Fincham argued AMI 301 improperly required an acquittal on the greater offenses before considering the extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter lesser offense.
- The circuit court denied the proposed alternative and issued the standard instruction; the jury returned guilty verdicts on first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding AMI 301 did not accurately state the law for considering extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter and that this error deprived Fincham of due process; the dissent argued the model instruction was correct and no error occurred in context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AMI 301 barred considering extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter | Fincham: standard AMI 301 precluded manslaughter unless doubt on murders | State: no error; model instruction allows consideration after greater offense | Yes; error; manslaughter must be considered after murder verdict |
| Preservation and applicability of the Blueford ruling | Fincham preserved AMI 301 issue through defense proffer | State: preservation fails for AMI 302; Blueford applies narrowly | Preserved on AMI 301; Blueford distinguished; not dispositive here |
| Harmlessness and sufficiency of evidence | Any error is reversible due to due-process impact | Facts did not rationally justify manslaughter instruction; harmless error | Error not harmless; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Rainey v. State, 310 Ark. 419 (1992) (extreme-emotional-disturbance not a traditional lesser offense; skip rule rejected)
- Blueford v. Arkansas, 132 S. Ct. 2044 (2012) (distinguishable; final verdict on greater offenses governs double jeopardy issues)
- Gilcrease v. State, 318 S.W.3d 70 (2009) (due process required when omitting lesser-included offenses misstates law)
- Henderson v. State, 349 Ark. 701 (2002) (due process and correctness of jury instructions)