Hampton v. State
2014 Ark. 303
Ark.2014Background
- Kendrick Hampton was tried for capital murder (domestic-related killing) after the victim was found shot; Hampton led police to the body via his mother and was charged with capital murder.
- Jury was instructed on capital murder, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter; jury convicted Hampton of second-degree murder and sentenced him to 780 months total (600 months + 180-month enhancement) and a $15,000 fine.
- The trial occurred June 24–26, 2013, shortly after this court’s decision in Fincham v. State (May 2013), which held that AMI Crim.2d 301 improperly prevented juries from considering extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter unless they first had reasonable doubt on murder.
- Because model instructions had not yet been revised, the circuit court gave modified nonmodel instructions intended to conform to Fincham and to allow jurors to consider manslaughter after finding murder.
- On appeal Hampton argued the modified instructions (1) failed to reflect Fincham’s allocation of the State’s burden to disprove extreme emotional disturbance and (2) did not address a possible divided jury on manslaughter unanimity; the State responded that Hampton’s burden argument was not preserved and that the unanimity claim was hypothetical.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed: it held Hampton failed to preserve the specific burden-of-proof argument, found no record evidence of a divided jury, and declined to decide hypothetical questions; a concurrence would have found the argument preserved but agreed to affirm on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hampton) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s modified lesser-included instructions (post-Fincham) improperly shifted the burden by requiring the State to disprove extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter or otherwise failed to instruct on unanimity when jurors might be split on manslaughter | Fincham created a new burden requiring the State to disprove extreme emotional disturbance; instructions failed to place that burden on the State and did not require unanimous finding re: manslaughter vs murder | Hampton did not preserve the specific Fincham-based burden argument at trial; no evidence jury was split and verdict forms show unanimous findings; issue partly hypothetical | Majority: Not preserved; no reversible error; declined to reach hypothetical unanimity question. Concurrence: would have treated the argument as preserved but still would affirm because instructions adequately put burden on State. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fincham v. State, 427 S.W.3d 643 (Ark. 2013) (holding AMI Crim.2d 301 improperly prevented juries from considering extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter unless they first had reasonable doubt on murder)
- Fritts v. State, 431 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2013) (evidentiary sufficiency standards and brief factual recitation when sufficiency not challenged)
- Jester v. State, 239 S.W.3d 484 (Ark. 2006) (circuit courts should not use nonmodel instructions unless model instructions are inaccurate)
- Clark v. State, 287 S.W.3d 567 (Ark. 2009) (review standard: instruction rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Porter v. State, 191 S.W.3d 531 (Ark. 2004) (appellate review limited to objections made at trial; cannot change arguments on appeal)
- Kelly v. State, 85 S.W.3d 893 (Ark. 2002) (presumption that jurors follow proper jury instructions)
- Johnson v. State, 863 S.W.2d 305 (Ark. 1993) (courts do not decide academic or purely hypothetical questions)