Neely v. State
370 S.W.3d 820
| Ark. | 2010Background
- Appellant convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 60 years, plus a 15-year firearm-enhancement, to run consecutively.
- Appellant challenges the firearm-enhancement statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-120, as repealed by implication when the Arkansas Criminal Code became effective in 1976.
- Trial included a jury which found appellant employed a firearm during the offense and the court instructed under AMI Crim. 2d 8201 incorporating § 16-90-120.
- This court in Williams v. State harmonized § 5-4-104(a) with § 16-90-120(a-b) and held no implied repeal, supporting a harmonious reading.
- The majority held § 16-90-120 was not repealed by implication and affirmed; a dissent criticized the result.
- Dissenting Justices Hannah, Corbin, and Danielson emphasized repeal and nonexistence of enforceable § 16-90-120.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §16-90-120 was repealed by implication. | Williams precedent supports harmony, so not repealed. | General Assembly intended repeal or replacement; it did not remain in force. | Not repealed by implication. |
| Whether §5-4-505 and §16-90-120 can be harmonized. | §16-90-120 is a sentence enhancement within harmony with minimums. | §5-4-505 provides maximums; potential conflict could exist. | They can be read harmoniously; §16-90-120 remains valid as enhancement. |
| Whether the jury instruction based on §16-90-120 was proper. | Instruction correctly followed the statute as in Williams. | Instruction improperly relied on an allegedly repealed statute. | affirmed; jury instructed under §16-90-120. |
| Impact of Williams on current case and legislature's actions. | Legislature has not repealed; Williams controls. | Legislature’s actions post-Williams undermine the statute's validity. | Court follows Williams; not repealed by implication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 364 Ark. 203 (2005) (harmonization of §5-4-104(a) and §16-90-120(a-b) to allow enhancement)
- Cox v. State, 365 Ark. 358 (2006) (repeat/repeal rules; implied repeal only if irreconcilable)
- Thomas v. State, 349 Ark. 447 (2002) (parity of acts; harmonious construction)
- Johnson v. State, 331 Ark. 421 (1998) (predecessor-act interpretation when laws enacted at different times)
- Watson v. State, 71 Ark.App. 52 (2000) (not in conflict where not reenacted)