Jackson v. State
2017 Ark. 195
| Ark. | 2017Background
- In 2002 Anarian Chad Jackson was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to life; this court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
- Jackson filed successive pro se petitions seeking leave to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis; this is his sixth petition.
- Jackson alleges prosecutorial misconduct and Brady violations based primarily on (a) coercion and promises of leniency to witnesses Chris Bush and Takesha Griffin (Shepard), (b) withheld exculpatory evidence, and (c) new affidavits from those witnesses and from Renita Pennington claiming alternate perpetrators and prosecutorial interference.
- The State opposed the petition and submitted trial records, docket sheets, and the prosecutor’s filings (including a motion to show cause for Pennington’s failure to appear) that contradict Jackson’s factual assertions.
- The court applied coram nobis standards: the remedy is rare, requires facts extrinsic to the record showing a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different, and successive petitions that re-argue prior claims without new meritorious facts constitute an abuse of the writ.
- The court found the new affidavits and materials either within the trial record, cumulative, conclusory, or otherwise insufficient to show withheld Brady material or a reasonable probability of a different outcome; it denied reinvestment and related supplementation motions and deemed other motions moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave should be granted to pursue coram nobis based on alleged Brady violations and coerced witness testimony | Jackson: Prosecutor and investigators coerced witnesses (Bush, Griffin), suppressed exculpatory evidence (e.g., favorable treatment of Bush, Pennington’s information), and filed misleading pleadings to hide misconduct | State: Trial record, docket entries, and prosecutor filings undermine Jackson’s claims; affidavits are recantations or cumulative and do not show material, undisclosed Brady evidence | Denied — allegations are conclusory, largely within or discoverable from the record, and fail to show a reasonable probability the outcome would differ; successive petition is abuse of the writ |
| Whether recanted witness affidavits support coram nobis relief | Jackson: Bush’s and Griffin’s later affidavits show trial testimony was false and coerced | State: Recantations alone are not cognizable on coram nobis; trial record contradicts recantations or shows issues were known | Denied — recantations insufficient; coram nobis not available for mere recantation |
| Whether alleged prosecutorial misrepresentation re: Bush’s prior charges and dismissal of firearm charge constitutes Brady violation | Jackson: Prosecutor misstated or concealed favorable resolutions and dismissals to induce testimony and misled the court | State: Docket and record show prosecutor’s statements were accurate; no withheld material favorable evidence shown | Denied — supporting documents show no misrepresentation and no suppressed Brady material |
| Whether Pennington’s late affidavit naming alternate perpetrator and alleging prosecutor told her to leave town warrants coram nobis | Jackson: Pennington’s affidavit provides newly discovered exculpatory evidence and shows prosecutorial interference | State: Trial record already contained evidence of "Little Mark" (Marcus Hunter); prosecutor filed motion to show cause for Pennington’s failure to appear, contradicting her affidavit | Denied — affidavit is not extrinsic, contradicts official filings, and does not create reasonable probability of different verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 359 Ark. 297, 197 S.W.3d 468 (Ark. 2004) (affirming petitioner’s conviction)
- Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (permission required to reinvest trial court with coram nobis jurisdiction after appeal)
- Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852 (Ark. 2014) (coram nobis is extraordinary; judgment presumed valid)
- Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (standards for coram nobis and burden to show extrinsic factual errors)
- Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2004) (Brady claim requirements explained)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 767, 140 S.W.2d 675 (Ark. 1940) (recantation alone not a basis for coram nobis)
- Taylor v. State, 303 Ark. 586, 799 S.W.2d 519 (Ark. 1990) (recantation does not fit coram nobis remedy)