Gay v. State
2016 Ark. 433
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Randy William Gay was retried in March 2015 for the 2011 homicide of Connie Snow; a Garland County jury convicted him of capital murder and sentenced him to death on March 20, 2015.
- Gay’s first trial ended in a mistrial in 2013; before that trial the court ordered a State-requested mental evaluation over Gay’s objection.
- At the 2015 sentencing phase Gay introduced his Department of Correction "pen pack" (≈300 pages) through a DOC classification witness and did not object to its admission.
- During voir dire the trial court limited certain defense questions about the death penalty and mitigation; some venirepersons were excused for cause or peremptorily struck.
- The court refused several defense proffered jury instructions (AMI Crim. 2d 202 and 206), excluded a proposed "lingering doubt" mitigator, and refused to submit a mitigator that Gay purportedly had a calming influence in custody.
- On appeal Gay raised seven issues; the Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the record (including Rule 10 review) and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Gay's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of DOC "pen pack" at penalty phase | Pen pack was highly prejudicial and should not have been considered | Pen pack was introduced by Gay; no contemporaneous objection was made | Affirmed — issue not preserved; Gay invited the ruling by introducing it and did not show a Wicks exception |
| Voir dire limits on death-penalty/mitigation questioning | Court improperly restricted defense from probing jurors’ views on death penalty and mitigation | Court acted within wide discretion; counsel was "fact-qualifying" venire and restrictions were proper | Affirmed — no preserved objection or proffer; limits were within trial court discretion |
| Alleged inconsistent rehabilitative questioning leading to improper juror removals | Uneven questioning biased removal of jurors for cause, denying fair jury | Court exercised discretion evenly; challenged jurors’ answers supported removal or peremptory strikes | Affirmed — no contemporaneous objections preserved; record does not show abuse of discretion |
| State’s motion for mental examination | Court erred in ordering mental exam over Gay’s objection | Court had statutory authority and reason to believe mental condition could become an issue | Affirmed — Gay refused to participate and exam was not used at trial; no prejudice shown |
| Refusal to give AMI Crim. 2d 202 (inconsistent statements) | Instruction appropriate because witness made inconsistent statements to FBI | State objected, arguing no pointed inconsistency was shown | Affirmed — defense failed to identify or develop the inconsistencies; no basis to give the instruction |
| Refusal to give AMI Crim. 2d 206 (corroboration of confession) | State’s references to Gay’s statements amounted to a confession requiring corroboration instruction | State’s argument addressed truthfulness, not a confession; closing argument is not evidence | Affirmed — no confession was admitted; instruction would have been confusing and was unnecessary |
| Denial of "lingering doubt" mitigator | Lingering doubt should be a mitigating circumstance supporting life sentence | Instruction improperly invites jurors to consider guilt-phase doubts during penalty phase; precedent permits refusal | Affirmed — Court declined to revisit Ruiz; "lingering doubt" instruction not required |
| Exclusion of "calming influence" mitigator | Lack of disciplinary infractions supports an inference Gay calmed others in custody | No evidence or testimony substantiating the claim; mitigation must be supported by record | Affirmed — Gay failed to present evidence to support the mitigator |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 362 Ark. 459 (preservation/plain-error principle and contemporaneous objection requirement)
- Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256 (Wicks exceptions to preservation rule)
- Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156 (scope of voir dire and judge’s wide discretion)
- Henry v. State, 309 Ark. 1 (standard for reviewing voir dire limits)
- Walker v. State, 304 Ark. 393 (abuse-of-discretion test)
- Ruiz v. State, 299 Ark. 144 (refusal of lingering-doubt instruction upheld)
- Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 (federal precedent referenced regarding lingering doubt)
- Mitchell v. State, 527 So. 2d 179 (Florida case referenced on lingering-doubt instruction)