Rackley v. State, 2014 Ark. 39

Rackley appeals postconviction denial under Rule 37.1 after Faulkner County conviction for multiple sex offenses.
Appellant’s trial counsel Horner simultaneously represented Rackley and his wife, Cynthia Walters, who faced related charges.
Horner sought to limit Walters’ out-of-court statements; trial allowed Walters to testify later outside the jury’s presence invoking Fifth Amendment.
Damaging out-of-court statements by Walters were admitted and presented through other witnesses’ testimony.
Horner did not obtain conflict-free representation for Walters and failed to present an unconflicted defense strategy.
Court reversed and remanded for a new trial with conflict-free counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there an actual conflict of interest from dual representation.	Rackley argues conflict affected performance.	Horner contends representation was united; any conflict immaterial.	Yes; there was an actual conflict affecting performance.
Did the conflict require reversal for a new trial.	Conflict harmed defense strategy and evidence handling.	Remedy could be addressed without reversal if strategy remained effective.	Reversed and remanded for a new trial with conflict-free counsel.

Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 530 (2003) (conflict-of-interest standard require showing adverse effects)
Johnson v. State, 321 Ark. 117 (1995) (burden on defendant to prove conflict affected representation)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (conflicts require showing adverse effects, not mere possibility)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (the standard for actual conflicts of interest)
Sheridan v. State, 331 Ark. 1 (1998) (conflicts can affect defense strategy and proceedings)
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942) (cross-purposes in defense representation)