Rose v. State
2017 Ark. App. 355
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lori Rose was convicted by a Polk County jury of aggravated residential burglary, second-degree domestic battery, aggravated assault, and terroristic threatening for shooting her ex‑partner, Billy Vaught, in his home after confronting him about alleged abuse of her daughter.
- At trial, Vaught testified Rose entered his bedroom late at night, threatened him, and a rifle discharged during a struggle; he suffered serious leg injuries. Rose gave two recorded statements: first denying being at the home, then admitting she went there intoxicated and handled a rifle that discharged.
- The jury found Rose guilty and recommended 72 years; the court sentenced her to 36 years. This Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Rose filed a timely Rule 37 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to file a suppression motion, failure to introduce a text message, inadequate meeting/preparation, failure to call witnesses, and exclusion from voir dire). A Rule 37 hearing was held; trial counsel testified about strategic choices (concerns over opening 404(b) matters, jury nullification strategy, not involving client in voir dire).
- The trial court denied relief, finding no Strickland deficiency or prejudice; the Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Strickland and Arkansas precedent and finding counsel’s choices within the range of reasonable professional judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Rose's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to move to suppress first custodial statement | Counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the first statement as involuntary due to intoxication | No evidence at the Rule 37 hearing showed suppression motion would have succeeded; failure to move not ineffective | Denied — no showing motion was warranted or would have succeeded; no deficient performance shown |
| 2. Failure to introduce text message | Counsel should have introduced a text showing Vaught invited Rose to his home, undermining burglary/license issues | Text testimony and other evidence already presented; the claimed text would be cumulative and meritless because license can terminate after inflicting injury | Denied — admission of text would not likely change outcome; counsel’s choice reasonable |
| 3. Failure to call witnesses/character witnesses | Counsel’s failure to call witnesses denied testimony supporting Rose’s state of mind and mitigation at sentencing | Decision whether to call witnesses is strategic; counsel reasonably avoided opening door to 404(b) evidence about prior misconduct | Denied — strategic decision supported by reasonable professional judgment |
| 4. Insufficient preparation and exclusion from voir dire | Counsel met only a few times and excluded Rose from voir dire, impairing defense preparation and jury selection | Insufficient meetings alone do not establish ineffectiveness; Rose did not identify how more meetings or participation in voir dire would have altered juror outcomes | Denied — Rose failed to show deficient performance or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
- Conley v. State, 2014 Ark. 172 (appellate standard for reviewing denial of Rule 37 relief and Strickland application)
- Sparkman v. State, 373 Ark. 45 (confession/videotaped statement likely to impact outcome)
- Lee v. State, 343 Ark. 702 (trial counsel’s decision to call witnesses and defendant’s discussion about testifying)
- Wicoff v. State, 321 Ark. 97 (strategic decisions must be supported by reasonable professional judgment)
- Holt v. State, 2011 Ark. 391 (license to enter a home may terminate after the entrant inflicts injury)