Hill v. Gallagher
2016 Ark. 257
Ark.2016Background
- Appellant Jessie Hill sought records from the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory relating to his criminal cases (lab #95-00993 and #95-00769 / CR-95-38 and CR-95-156).
- Hill filed multiple FOIA requests over more than six years; the Crime Laboratory repeatedly denied or failed to produce the requested evidence.
- Hill moved for reconsideration of this Court’s prior decision in Hill v. Gallagher, 2016 Ark. 198; the Court treated the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus.
- The FOIA provision at issue (Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-312(a)(1)(B)(ii)) mandates that the laboratory disclose to a defendant all evidence in the defendant’s case that is kept, obtained, or retained by the laboratory.
- The Court found the statute’s language nondiscretionary—granting defendants an absolute right to evidence in the lab’s possession—and concluded the laboratory had refused to perform its ministerial duty.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition and issued a writ of mandamus ordering the State Crime Laboratory to provide Hill the requested evidence forthwith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Crime Laboratory must disclose to a defendant all evidence related to the defendant’s case | Hill: FOIA requires disclosure of all evidence the lab keeps for the defendant’s case | Crime Lab: (implicit) refusal to release/evasion despite requests | The statute is mandatory; lab must disclose the evidence |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel production | Hill: Mandamus is proper because the lab’s duty is ministerial and nondiscretionary | Lab: (implicit) lab previously declined production; no argument preserved in opinion | Mandamus granted because Hill has a clear legal right and no adequate remedy |
| Whether the lab’s longstanding refusal violates FOIA as interpreted by precedent | Hill: Prior precedent (Davis v. Deen) supports mandatory disclosure | Lab: persisted in withholding despite precedent | Court reaffirmed Davis and ordered compliance |
| Whether the Court should treat a motion for reconsideration as a petition for mandamus | Hill: Requested reconsideration and relief; practical petition for records | Lab: no separate response in opinion | Court treated motion as petition and granted relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Munson, 288 Ark. 57, 701 S.W.2d 378 (mandamus requires clear and certain legal right and no adequate remedy)
- Boone Cty. v. Apex of Ark., Inc., 288 Ark. 152, 702 S.W.2d 795 (mandamus enforces performance of an established legal right; no discretion in the ministerial act)
- State v. Sheriff of Lafayette Cty., 292 Ark. 523, 731 S.W.2d 207 (writ appropriate when public officer neglects a plain, specific, nondiscretionary duty)
- Davis v. Deen, 2014 Ark. 313, 437 S.W.3d 694 (FOIA mandates that the laboratory disclose to a defendant all evidence kept, obtained, or retained by the laboratory)