Green v. State
2013 Ark. 497
Ark.2013Background
- In 1998 four members of the Elliott family were killed; Felicia’s remains were found in 2000 near Billy Green’s home. All deaths ruled homicides.
- Billy Green was retried in 2012 after this court reversed his original convictions in Green v. State (2006) for erroneous admission of bad-acts evidence; his 2012 convictions (four counts of capital murder, one count of kidnapping) and life sentences are the subject of this appeal.
- Key trial evidence: forensic pathologist testimony about multiple weapons (small-caliber gun, knife, tire tool); blood/DNA linking items to victims; a tire tool found in a children’s bedroom; a fellow inmate (Phillip Shockey) testified Billy confessed and described murders; family witnesses placed Billy receiving a call from Chad, leaving in a trench coat and gloves, and later instructing the family to lie about his whereabouts.
- Billy testified he was not a killer but helped cover up Chad’s crimes; family testimony and other witnesses supported the State’s theory that Billy was an accomplice.
- The jury convicted; Billy raised ten appellate points (sufficiency, hearsay/Confrontation, multiple mistrial claims for witness statements, accomplice instructions, juror challenge, record-settling, amended judgment), and the court affirmed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Billy) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency (directed verdict) | Evidence does not show Billy committed murders or was an accomplice; Shockey’s inmate testimony is unreliable and should not be treated as corroborated accomplice testimony | Evidence (confessions, family testimony, concealment/alibi, forensic evidence) viewed in light most favorable to State is substantial to support convictions | Affirmed — substantial circumstantial and testimonial evidence supports convictions; credibility for jury to decide |
| Admission of Chad’s out-of-court statements / Confrontation Clause | Samons’s testimony recounting Chad’s statements violated Crawford because statements were testimonial and admitted for truth | Statements were admitted only to explain police actions (non-hearsay use); jury received limiting instruction | Affirmed — statements admitted to show investigation steps and limiting instruction cured Confrontation concern |
| Mistrials for prejudicial witness statements (Bonnie, Mary, Billy’s cross) | Testimony (Bonnie: traded sex for drugs at 15; Mary: statements implying Billy controlled her; questions implying Billy’s post-trial silence) was highly prejudicial; limiting instructions could not cure; request for mistrial required | Statements were inadvertent or invited by defense; judge promptly admonished/struck answers and gave limiting instructions; no deliberate elicitation warranting mistrial | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; admonitions and struck testimony cured error or issue was invited error |
| Accomplice jury instructions (AMI Crim.2d 401/404) | No rational basis to instruct on accomplice liability absent reliable accomplice testimony; Shockey should be disregarded | Multiple witnesses and evidence provided a rational basis to submit accomplice theory to jury | Affirmed — sufficient evidence to support accomplice instruction; giving instruction not an abuse of discretion |
| Juror challenge (Juror Pyles) | Pyles (part-time 911 operator) should have been removed for cause; forced to use a peremptory on her and accept another juror with law-enforcement ties | Appellant used peremptory to remove Pyles and did not exhaust challenges or seek removal of the later juror for cause | Affirmed — appellant failed to show he was forced to accept an unqualified juror for cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 365 Ark. 478, 231 S.W.3d 638 (Ark. 2006) (prior reversal for admission of reputation/bad-acts evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause framework)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (prohibition on using defendant’s silence for impeachment)
- Chism v. State, 312 Ark. 559, 853 S.W.2d 255 (Ark. 1993) (substantial-evidence standard requiring inference not be mere speculation)
- McCuen v. State, 338 Ark. 631, 999 S.W.2d 682 (Ark. 1999) (nunc pro tunc correction of judgment appropriate)
- Hall v. State, 314 Ark. 402, 862 S.W.2d 268 (Ark. 1993) (mistrial standard and curative admonition)
- Strawhacker v. State, 304 Ark. 726, 804 S.W.2d 720 (Ark. 1991) (inadvertent mention of prior bad acts cured by admonition)