Howard v. State
2012 Ark. 177
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Howard convicted by jury of two counts of capital murder and one count of attempted capital murder for Day family killings and Day baby attack; sentenced to death plus 30 years and $15,000 fine on Dec 9, 1999.
- This Court affirmed convictions in Howard I (2002) and denied subsequent Rule 37 relief (Howard II, Howard III).
- Howard sought writ of error coram nobis via multiple state and federal proceedings; current petition seeks reinvestiture of jurisdiction for coram nobis review.
- DNA/mtDNA evidence from work boots linked Howard to Day murder; handwritten notes in Diefenbach’s mtDNA report allegedly reveal testing errors.
- Howard claims Brady violations for withholding the mtDNA report notes and a wood-particle report; argues suppression prejudiced the defense.
- Court grants reinvestiture to address meritorious Brady claims and to determine diligence/timeliness; remands for evidentiary hearing on these issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady claim based on mtDNA report notes | Howard argues notes show testing errors and suppression | State asserts no pretrial disclosure; mischaracterization | Merit shown; evidentiary hearing required to assess suppression and prejudice |
| Brady claim based on wood-particle report | Howard alleges withheld report favoring defense | State argues res judicata and lack of exculpatory value | Merit shown; reinvestiture for circuit court to evaluate Brady/materiality |
| Mitigating-evidence Brady claim (sheriff's report) | Evidence of childhood abuse withheld; could mitigate | Evidence known to defense or not available pretrial | Merit shown; reinvestiture for circuit court to consider mitigation Brady claim |
| Timeliness/Diligence issue | Due diligence in filing; information concealed | Diligence cannot be decided as matter of law | Diligence for timing is fact issue; circuit court to determine via evidentiary hearing |
| Scope of relief/threshold merit | Error coram nobis requires meritorious attack | Must show reasonable probability of different outcome | Court will grant relief where meritorious; reinvestiture granted for meritorious claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Cloird v. State, 349 Ark. 33 (2002) (Brady with withheld DNA evidence merit; reinvestiture for coram nobis review)
- Sanders v. State, 374 Ark. 70 (2008) (Error coram nobis requires meritorious, extrinsic-fact error)
- Webb v. State, 2009 Ark. 550 (2009) (Due diligence framework for coram nobis petitions)
- Flanagan v. State, 2010 Ark. 140 (2010) (Guides meritorious-claim standard for reinvestiture decision)
- Buckley v. State, 2010 Ark. 154 (2010) (Assessing merit via diligence; evidentiary hearing may be needed)
- O’Neal v. State, 2010 Ark. 425 (2010) (Rule 37/Coram Nobis distinctions; not interchangeable)
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) (Brady with mitigating evidence can be material to punishment; due process)