N.D. v. State
2011 Ark. 282
Ark.2011Background
- ND, then 15, was adjudicated delinquent and committed to DYS for aggravated robbery and weapon possession, with later releases and a third commitment.
- ND faced charges in Jefferson County Circuit Court: capital murder, escape, three aggravated-robbery counts, two theft counts, and second-degree battery.
- ND sought discovery; State disclosed via an open-file policy, with a 954-page discovery packet and later additional materials.
- A transfer hearing under Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-318 was scheduled; discovery deadlines and court orders required timely disclosure.
- Two witnesses, Pettis (cellmate) and Tackett (victim of a related incident), were added late and testified at the transfer hearing.
- The circuit court allowed Pettis and Tackett to testify, providing defense time to interview and cross-examine; ND sought reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pettis and Tackett testimony violated discovery orders | ND argues discovery violations prejudiced cross-examination and credibility assessment. | State contends witnesses were disclosed timely or were covered by existing discovery, no prejudice shown. | Yes, reversible error; prejudicial discovery violations require transfer. |
| Whether Rule 17.1 was violated by late witness disclosure | ND asserts Rule 17.1 was violated by last-minute witness list additions without adequate background. | State contends discovery provided; defense had opportunity to interview and cross-examine. | Yes, violated; prejudice established; abuse of discretion. |
| Whether Arkansas 9-27-318(e) constitutional as applied | ND challenges statute as unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and impropriety of proceedings. | State defends statute as within legislative and procedural bounds for juvenile transfers. | Court did not reach meritorious constitutional ruling due to reversal on discovery grounds. |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying transfer to juvenile court | ND seeks transfer to juvenile court based on factors in 9-27-318(g). | State argues case should remain in adult court due to severity and nature of offenses. | Reversed; circuit court abused discretion by admitting challenged witnesses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 318 Ark. 212 (1994) (prejudice not shown when statement provided pre-trial)
- Bray v. State, 322 Ark. 178 (1995) (harmless discovery violation if no prejudice)
- Thomas v. State, 312 Ark. 158 (1993) (discovery disclosure standard)
- Hicks v. State, 340 Ark. 605 (2000) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions)
- Mosley v. State, 323 Ark. 244 (1996) (harmless error analysis for discovery violations)
- Burton v. State, 314 Ark. 317 (1993) (remedial interview of undisclosed witness)
- Solis v. State, 371 Ark. 590 (2007) (avoid advisory opinions when resolution possible)