Maiden v. State
2014 Ark. 294
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Victim Kylaus Williams was shot to death; Maiden and codefendant Trenell Emerson were arrested and tried for capital murder; Maiden sentenced to life without parole (death waived).
- Eyewitness testimony: Emerson ultimately testified he saw Maiden shoot Williams; Tim Bradley was a State witness who denied prior convictions at trial.
- Police tracked Maiden via hotel registration and bus GPS; Maiden and Emerson arrested in Arizona.
- Defense sought to impeach Bradley with alleged pending theft/false-name charges (Rule 608(b)) and to impeach Emerson with prior inconsistent statements (Rule 613(b)).
- Midtrial the State disclosed (after Emerson testified) that Emerson had changed his prior statement and would testify as an eyewitness; defense moved for mistrial.
- Maiden also challenged overlap between capital and first-degree murder statutes (equal protection), the trial court’s courtroom remarks, and admission of palm-print expert testimony without a Daubert hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Maiden's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of impeachment of Bradley under Ark. R. Evid. 608(b) | Bradley lied about dismissal of theft charge; Maiden wanted to impeach with pending theft/false-name charges | 608(b) is restrictive; prior theft is not probative of truthfulness and exclusion was reasonable | Court affirmed exclusion: pending theft/false-name did not sufficiently relate to truthfulness; prior theft not probative of veracity |
| Impeachment of Emerson with prior inconsistent statements (Rule 613(b)) | Maiden sought to introduce extrinsic evidence through detective Massiet to show Emerson’s inconsistent prior statements | Emerson either denied or admitted prior statements on cross; State argued credibility issues were exposed without extrinsic proof | Court affirmed exclusion of extrinsic evidence as Maiden failed to show prejudice: Emerson admitted lies and inconsistencies, so credibility was already impeached |
| Motion for mistrial based on State’s failure to disclose changed Emerson statement (Crim. Proc. R. 17.1) | Nondisclosure materially prejudiced defense (undermined core opening theme that no eyewitness would testify) and warranted mistrial | State conceded failure, apologized; court offered curative measures (recall witness, jury instruction, disclosure on record) | Court denied mistrial: found discovery violation and prejudice but concluded curative measures cured prejudice; no undermining of trial outcome shown |
| Overlap of capital murder §5-10-101(a)(4) and first-degree murder §5-10-102(a)(2) (Equal Protection) | Overlapping statutes create arbitrary prosecutorial choice and unequal classes under Ark. Const. art. 2 §3 | Federal precedent (Batchelder) and Arkansas precedent reject equal-protection challenge to overlapping statutes | Court rejected novel state-constitutional argument; followed controlling federal/Arkansas precedent upholding prosecutor’s charging discretion |
| Trial judge’s critical remarks to defense counsel before jury | Judge’s remarks ridiculed defense counsel and prejudiced jury against Maiden; warrants reversal under Wicks exception | No contemporaneous objection; comments addressed both sides and aimed at decorum; not so flagrant as to invoke Wicks exception | Court found no reversible error: remarks were admonitory to both parties, not a prejudicial rebuke to defense alone |
| Failure to hold Daubert hearing on palm-print expert | Palm print identification (sole physical evidence) required a Daubert reliability hearing; trial court abused discretion | Trial court ruled Maiden’s Daubert motion untimely and did not reach merits; failure to obtain a ruling below precludes appellate review | Court refused to reach merits: Maiden failed to obtain a proper ruling at trial on timeliness/merits, so issue not reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. State, 334 Ark. 43 (1998) (three-part test for Rule 608(b) impeachment)
- Scamardo v. State, 2013 Ark. 163 (2013) (Rule 613(b) and admission of extrinsic prior inconsistent statements)
- Yankaway v. State, 366 Ark. 18 (2006) (admitted prior inconsistent statements preclude extrinsic impeachment)
- Kennedy v. State, 344 Ark. 433 (2001) (an admitted liar need not be further proved)
- Watkins v. State, 320 Ark. 163 (1995) (prior theft is not probative of truthfulness)
- Clements v. State, 303 Ark. 319 (1990) (mistrial warranted where State withheld grand-jury testimony inconsistent with in-court testimony)
- Miller v. State, 273 Ark. 508 (1981) (rejecting equal-protection challenge to overlapping murder statutes)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (prosecutor’s choice among overlapping statutes does not violate due process/equal protection)