Slocum v. State
442 S.W.3d 858
Ark.2014Background
- Petitioner Kenneth Slocum was convicted of capital murder in 1995 and sentenced to life without parole; conviction affirmed on appeal.
- Slocum sought postconviction relief under Rule 37.1; trial court granted a new trial and this Court reversed.
- Now Slocum, pro se, seeks to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, requiring Court permission under Dansby v. State.
- Coram-nobis relief is rare and available only for specific fundamental errors, with a strong presumption of validity of the judgment.
- Slocum argues Brady violations: withholding of material evidence; he attaches affidavits and a police interview as purported exculpatory material.
- The Court denies the petition for leave to reinvest jurisdiction, finding no good cause or demonstrated Brady violation sufficient to warrant coram nobis relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition shows a Brady violation warranting coram-nobis relief | Slocum contends State withheld exculpatory/date-of-death evidence | State did not withhold; any issues were scrivener’s errors or known at trial | No Brady violation established; insufficient extrinsic factual error to justify relief |
| Whether the missing or erroneous date-related information affected the outcome | Date-of-death—correct date withheld from defense would change result | Record supports the date as October 4, 1993; any error was scrivener’s and not withheld | No prejudice shown; did not alter trial result |
| Whether the Vernon Scott testimony constitutes a Brady violation due to concealment | Scott’s drug use and status as a State witness were not disclosed as required | Scott was known as State witness; alleged drug use was public trial testimony | Not a Brady violation; information was known and counsel cross-examined appropriately |
| Whether the petition satisfied the stringent standards for coram nobis relief | Petitioner seeks extraordinary relief for fundamental errors | Coram nobis relief is available only under compelling circumstances | Denied; petitioner failed to show fundamental extrinsic error or compelling circumstances |
| Whether the trial court could entertain coram nobis relief post-affirmance without permission | Permission required to reinvest jurisdiction | This Court must grant permission; petition denied for lack of good cause | Permission denied; petition denied by the Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose favorable evidence; materiality standard later refined by Strickler; three elements for Brady violation)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (materials are material if reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Burks v. State, 2013 Ark. 188 (Ark. 2013) (burden to show fundamental error extrinsic to the record)
- Greene v. State, 2013 Ark. 251 (Ark. 2013) (brady analysis and coram-nobis limitations)
- Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (Ark. 2013) (coram-nobis relief is extraordinary and rarely granted)
- Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635 (Ark. 2001) (permission required to proceed in trial court after affirmance)