McArthur v. State
2017 Ark. 120
| Ark. | 2017Background
- In 1991 Steven Laron McArthur was convicted by a jury of capital murder for the 1990 killing of Rodney Spence and sentenced to life without parole; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- McArthur now seeks leave to file a second pro se petition in the trial court for a writ of error coram nobis; leave is required because the conviction was already affirmed.
- Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available only for fundamental factual errors extrinsic to the record (limited categories: insanity at trial, coerced plea, Brady/materially withheld evidence, or a third-party confession after conviction).
- McArthur’s petition advances eleven grounds, principally: recantation by codefendant Donald Hawley (affidavit claiming Hawley was sole shooter), two new witness affidavits (Stephens and Carlin) alleging they saw a third-party shooter, and allegations that law enforcement and prosecutors suppressed exculpatory evidence.
- The trial evidence included Hawley’s trial testimony implicating McArthur, McArthur’s testimony denying active participation, a stipulation that the murder weapon was the gun found in a Dallas apartment, and corroborating testimony (including a jailhouse witness). McArthur previously sought coram nobis relief and was denied.
- The Court evaluates the new affidavits’ credibility, whether any alleged suppression was Brady material and outcome-determinative, and whether the claims are cognizable in coram nobis (e.g., judicial-bias, ineffective-assistance claims are generally not cognizable).
Issues
| Issue | McArthur's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability/standard for coram nobis | McArthur contends newly discovered extrinsic facts (recantation and new witnesses) justify coram nobis. | State notes coram nobis is narrow, requires fundamental extrinsic factual error and leave to file. | Petition denied — McArthur failed to show the required fundamental extrinsic error or materiality. |
| Brady / suppressed exculpatory evidence | Suppression of Hawley’s pretrial statement and statements/affidavits of Stephens and Carlin deprived McArthur of material exculpatory evidence. | State: allegations are unsubstantiated or not outcome-determinative; affidavits lack credibility and were not shown to have been suppressed in a manner that would change the verdict. | Denied — court finds affidavits unpersuasive and no reasonable probability of a different result; conclusory claims insufficient. |
| Recanted testimony (Hawley) | Hawley’s affidavit recants trial testimony, asserting he alone shot Spence and that prosecutors/sheriff coerced false testimony. | State: recantation is unreliable, and coram nobis is not a vehicle to merely contradict adjudicated facts. | Denied — recantation alone is not cognizable; trial evidence and prior stipulation undermine recantation’s effect. |
| Judicial bias / other non-extrinsic claims (ineffective assistance, denial of counsel, due process of postconviction procedure) | McArthur alleges judge bias, trial errors, ineffective assistance, and denial of postconviction remedies. | State: these are trial-record or constitutional claims cognizable on direct appeal or Rule 37, not coram nobis; bias not shown as hidden or outcome-determinative. | Denied — such claims are not cognizable in coram nobis; petitioner failed to show hidden judicial bias or extrinsic fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- McArthur v. State, 309 Ark. 196, 830 S.W.2d 842 (Ark. 1992) (direct-appeal disposition of McArthur’s conviction)
- Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (coram nobis availability and narrow standard; leave required after affirmed judgment)
- Westerman v. State, 456 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2015) (presumption of validity for convictions in coram nobis context)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (listing coram nobis categories)
- Noble v. State, 462 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. 2015) (Brady materiality test: reasonable probability of different result)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady framework: materiality, suppression, favorable evidence)
- Wilson v. State, 499 S.W.3d 638 (Ark. 2016) (recantation alone not cognizable in coram nobis)
- Carter v. State, 501 S.W.3d 375 (Ark. 2016) (conclusory claims and omissions from record insufficient for coram nobis)
- Matthews v. State, 505 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. 2016) (ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram nobis; Rule 37 proper vehicle)