Jones v. State
2017 Ark. App. 286
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Tyrun Lamont Jones was charged with first-degree murder for the December 24, 2014, shooting death of Alex Booker; a jury convicted him of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by certain persons; sentence: 300 months plus a 180-month firearm enhancement.
- Two eyewitnesses inside the apartment testified: Brianna Jordan (said Jones shot Booker; fled after shooting) and Anita Henderson (testified Jones shot Booker four times in his back and fled).
- Defense sought to call Georgette Giles (not on the witness list) after Henderson testified; Giles would have testified that, months earlier in prison, she overheard Henderson tell Jones, “Let’s put it all on [Jordan],” to impeach Henderson’s credibility.
- Giles had been present in the courtroom during Henderson’s testimony; the State objected under Ark. R. Evid. 615 (witness sequestration). The trial court excluded Giles’s testimony for violating the sequestration order and defense counsel’s delay in disclosure.
- At sentencing-phase closing, the prosecutor made remarks about Henderson’s emotional state and referenced “a higher court” and societal protection; Jones did not object at trial but raised prosecutorial-misconduct/due-process challenge on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Jones’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of witness under Ark. R. Evid. 615 | Exclusion of Giles was an abuse of discretion; deprived Jones of impeachment evidence | Giles violated sequestration by being present during testimony; court permissibly excluded her where defense counsel delayed disclosure and the presence could affect credibility | Affirmed — exclusion not reversible error; Jones failed to show prejudice |
| Prosecutorial statements at sentencing | Remarks were improper, fundamentally unfair, and violated due process; request remand for resentencing | Statements not so flagrant or structural to trigger review under the narrow Wicks exception; issue forfeited by failure to object | Affirmed — court declined to review under Wicks; statements not within narrow third-exception scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Lard v. State, 431 S.W.3d 249 (Ark. 2014) (purpose of sequestration rule is to prevent witnesses from tailoring testimony and to expose inconsistencies)
- Adams v. State, 427 S.W.3d 63 (Ark. 2013) (court will not reverse sequestration decisions absent prejudice)
- Mooney v. State, 331 S.W.3d 588 (Ark. App. 2009) (methods of enforcing sequestration and narrow discretion to exclude witnesses when party consented or procured noncompliance)
- Daniels v. State, 739 S.W.2d 135 (Ark. 1987) (exclusion not reversible when excluded testimony is essentially inconsequential)
- Wicks v. State, 606 S.W.2d 366 (Ark. 1980) (third Wicks exception: exceptionally flagrant error may excuse contemporaneous-objection rule)
- Anderson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 592 (Ark. 2003) (Wicks exception applied only in extraordinary cases affecting trial structure)
- Chunestudy v. State, 408 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2012) (refusal to apply Wicks where prosecutorial closing comments violated right to remain silent but did not meet third-exception standard)