James Derrick Grubbs v. State of Arkansas, 592 S.W.3d 688

James Derrick Grubbs pleaded guilty to capital murder for an offense committed at age 17 and was originally sentenced to life without parole.
After Miller v. Alabama, his mandatory LWOP was vacated and a jury resentencing was ordered.
At a two-day resentencing the State presented law-enforcement and victim-family witnesses; defense presented family, prison officials, and an expert on neuropsychology/child development.
The jury sentenced Grubbs to life (with parole eligibility under applicable state law); Grubbs appealed the circuit court’s refusal to give two proffered jury forms.
Proffered Instruction #1: additional Miller-derived language stating LWOP for juveniles should be reserved for the "rare" offender showing irretrievable depravity. The court gave a Miller-based instruction but refused the extra paragraph.
Proffered Instrument #2: a “Special Circumstances” verdict form (modeled on a death-penalty AMI form) listing 14 mitigating circumstances with binary juror-response options; the court refused it as inapplicable and potentially confusing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to give Grubbs’s full Miller-based instruction (including language that LWOP for juveniles is "uncommon" and limited to the "rare" irretrievably depraved offender)	Grubbs: the jury should have received the additional Miller-derived paragraph to guide sentencing and to reflect reduced juvenile culpability	State: the given Miller-form instruction accurately stated the law; additional paragraph was not required by Miller	Court: affirmed — no abuse of discretion; the given instruction correctly stated Miller and additional language was unnecessary.
Whether the court erred by refusing Grubbs’s “Special Circumstances” verdict/interrogatory form (death-penalty–style list of mitigating circumstances requiring jurors to mark existence)	Grubbs: jurors should record findings on enumerated mitigating circumstances	State: death-penalty interrogatory procedures do not apply where death is not an option; the proffered form deviated from the model and risked confusion	Court: affirmed — refusal proper; form derived from death-penalty procedure, was non-model, omitted standard option for "at least one but not all" jurors, and could mislead jurors.

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (juvenile mandatory life without parole violates Eighth Amendment)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (procedural requirement that sentencer consider youth before imposing LWOP)
Jackson v. Norris, 426 S.W.3d 906 (Ark. 2013) (post-Miller resentencing and sentencing-range guidance)
Vidos v. State, 239 S.W.3d 467 (Ark. 2006) (party entitled to instruction if correct statement of law and supported by evidence)
Henderson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2002) (use model criminal instructions unless inaccurate)
Stivers v. State, 118 S.W.3d 558 (Ark. 2003) (refusal valid when proffered instruction is not correct statement of law)
Ventress v. State, 794 S.W.2d 619 (Ark. 1990) (no error to refuse instruction if other instructions adequately cover issue)