588 S.W.3d 17
Ark.2019Background:
- Roy Hendrix arrived at his mother Judy’s home intoxicated, consumed alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamine, and later bound and severely beat her with a hammer; she survived with major head injuries.
- Hendrix was arrested after giving police the car keys; the car contained a hammer with the victim’s blood and hair, alcohol bottles, and phones.
- He was charged with attempted capital murder, kidnapping, and theft of property; he was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive life terms and a $10,000 fine.
- Hendrix requested and received state fitness-to-proceed and criminal-responsibility examinations; the state hospital (Dr. Silber) found him fit and criminally responsible.
- The day before trial, after receiving the unfavorable state report, Hendrix moved for a continuance to obtain an independent criminal-responsibility evaluation; the trial court denied the continuance for lack of diligence.
- Hendrix appealed only the denial of the continuance; the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion or resulting prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to obtain an independent criminal-responsibility examination | Hendrix: he only knew to seek an independent exam after the state disclosed its adverse report three days before trial; the late disclosure justified a continuance and access to an independent expert | State: Hendrix waited to see the state report and therefore was not diligent; Arkansas law requires diligence and voluntary intoxication is not a mental-disease defense; no prejudice shown | Court affirmed: denial was within discretion because Hendrix lacked diligence, and he failed to show prejudice that would amount to a denial of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 374 Ark. 341 (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of continuance)
- King v. State, 317 Ark. 293 (prejudice from denial of continuance is not presumed)
- Creed v. State, 372 Ark. 221 (factors courts should consider in ruling on continuance requests)
- Anthony v. State, 339 Ark. 20 (lack of diligence alone can justify denial of continuance)
- Dirickson v. State, 329 Ark. 572 ("wait-and-see" strategy is not diligent when seeking mental-responsibility evidence)
- Miller v. State, 328 Ark. 121 (same principle rejecting tactical delay in seeking expert evidence)
- Barnes v. State, 346 Ark. 91 (court will not presume prejudice absent proof)
- Dyer v. State, 343 Ark. 422 (failure to raise an affirmative defense of lack of criminal responsibility at trial undermines prejudice claim)