Smith v. State
456 S.W.3d 731
Ark.2014Background
- James E. Smith was convicted by a jury in 2001 of two counts of rape for sexual intercourse with his girlfriend’s daughters when both were under 14; he admitted the acts but claimed they occurred after the victims were adults and were consensual.
- Sentenced to consecutive 20-year terms; conviction and a subsequent Rule 37.1 postconviction denial were affirmed on appeal.
- In 2012 Smith filed a ~200-page pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction to pursue a writ of error coram nobis, asserting Brady violations and inconsistent victim statements; the petition was denied by this court.
- Smith filed a second, substantially similar ~200-page petition reiterating the inconsistent-statement and Brady arguments and appended the same handwritten victim statements.
- The State argued the second petition was an abuse of the writ because it reasserted claims already rejected; the Court reviewed coram-nobis standards and Brady materiality and denied the successive petition as an abuse of the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief is warranted based on alleged inconsistent victim statements and withheld statements (Brady) | Smith: Victim statements were inconsistent and withheld, and would have impeached credibility or shown innocence | State: Claims repeat prior petition, do not present new, extrinsic facts; alleged inconsistencies are immaterial given overwhelming evidence | Denied — petitioner failed to show extrinsic, material evidence that would have prevented the judgment; successive petition is abuse of the writ |
| Whether alleged Brady material (victim statements) was material to guilt | Smith: Withheld statements were favorable/impeaching and suppressed | State: Even if withheld, petitioner must show a reasonable probability the result would differ; evidence at trial was overwhelming | Denied — petitioner did not show a reasonable probability the outcome would be different |
| Whether sufficiency of the evidence can be challenged via coram nobis | Smith: Repeated claim that inconsistencies render evidence insufficient | State: Sufficiency/credibility are trial issues, not cognizable in coram-nobis | Denied — sufficiency and credibility are not cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings |
| Whether successive coram-nobis petitions raising same claims are permissible | Smith: Filed successive petition asserting (largely) same grounds | State: Successive petition is an abuse of the writ; court discretion to deny renewal | Denied — court dismissed as an abuse of the writ; reassertion of previously rejected grounds not allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of evidence favorable to accused violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality test: reasonable probability result would differ)
- Larimore v. State, 341 Ark. 397 (Ark. 2000) (sets out Brady elements under Arkansas law)
- Lacy v. State, 377 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2010) (discusses Brady/materiality in state context)
- United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168 (8th Cir. 1996) (abuse-of-writ doctrine applied to successive coram-nobis petitions)