Friar v. Erwin, 2014 Ark. 487

Robert Friar was charged with capital murder and related offenses in Jackson County; the State sought the death penalty.
The State moved under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-305 for mental-health evaluations; the circuit court ordered both a fitness-to-proceed examination and a criminal-responsibility examination.
Friar had filed a motion to bar the death penalty based on alleged mental retardation (A.C.A. § 5-4-618) but had not filed a formal notice of intent to raise a not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-disease-or-defect defense under § 5-2-305.
Friar petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court for extraordinary relief (mandamus and/or certiorari) to rescind the circuit court’s orders for the examinations.
The Supreme Court treated the mandamus petition as including certiorari, reviewed statutory interpretation of § 5-2-305 de novo, and stayed the lower-court orders pending resolution.
The Court found the fitness-to-proceed order lawful but concluded the criminal-responsibility order exceeded the circuit court’s authority because Friar had not filed the required notice under § 5-2-305.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Friar)	Defendant's Argument (State/Circuit Court)	Held
Authority to order fitness-to-proceed exam	Court needed factual finding of reasonable suspicion first; facts insufficient	Statute authorizes court to raise the issue and, upon finding reasonable suspicion, must order exam	Court: fitness-to-proceed order valid — court and State raised the issue and made reasonable-suspicion finding; order upheld
Authority to order criminal-responsibility exam	§ 5-2-305 requires defendant to file notice of intent to raise not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-disease-or-defect before any party may petition for exam; Friar had not filed such notice	Circuit court said Friar’s motion under § 5-4-618 (mental retardation) effectively raised the issue and justified ordering exam	Court: circuit court exceeded authority; no notice filed under § 5-2-305, so criminal-responsibility order vacated
Ordering simultaneous examinations	Simultaneous exams improper without satisfying statutory prerequisites	Circuit court had ordered both exams	Court did not decide on simultaneity because criminal-responsibility order vacated and issue rendered moot

State ex rel. Purcell v. Nelson, 246 Ark. 210, 438 S.W.2d 33 (explains mandamus limits; mandamus cannot control trial-court discretion)
Casement v. State, 318 Ark. 225, 884 S.W.2d 593 (certiorari corrects proceedings erroneous on the face of the record)
Lupo v. Lineberger, 313 Ark. 315, 855 S.W.2d 293 (discusses availability of certiorari for superintending control)
Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. Herndon, 365 Ark. 180, 226 S.W.3d 776 (no other adequate remedy exists where issuing court lacks legal authority for its order)
Conner v. Simes, 355 Ark. 422, 139 S.W.3d 476 (writ lies when judge acts in excess of authority)