Starling v. State
2016 Ark. 20
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Appellant Serandon Starling appeals a sentencing order for first-degree murder and a terroristic act, each enhanced by a firearm, with habitual-offender life terms plus 15 years; sentences run concurrently for the base offenses but firearm enhancements are consecutive to life terms.
- Counsel appointed for appeal filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw; appellant submitted pro se points; this Court has jurisdiction due to the life sentence under Rule 1-2(a)(2).
- Trial evidence shows Starling shot at P.J.’s car, killing P.J., after following and blocking the vehicle during a drug-deal dispute involving Starling’s associates.
- Adverse rulings addressed include denial of a directed verdict challenge, a refusal to instruct on reckless manslaughter, and the State’s in limine exclusion of prior drug-dealing evidence; the court found no reversible error overall.
- Pro se issues included challenges to the denial of the reckless-manslaughter instruction and consideration of extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter; the majority declined review on the latter per preservation rules, and affirmed the rest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder and terroristic act | Starling argues witnesses’ credibility undermines proof | State asserts substantial evidence supports guilt | Evidence supports guilt; no reversible error on sufficiency |
| Refusal to instruct reckless manslaughter | There is some evidence of recklessness supporting reckless manslaughter | No rational basis for reckless-manslaughter instruction | No error; no rational basis to give reckless-manslaughter instruction |
| Admission of evidence via motion in limine | State’s pretrial limitation of drug-dealer testimony prejudicial | Rulings were within discretion and no prejudice shown | No abuse of discretion; evidence exclusion affirmed |
| Pro se challenges on appeal (intent/directed verdict and extreme-emotional-disturbance) | Pro se points meritorious and preserved; denial misapplied standards | Arguments not preserved or not properly developed | Review limited; some issues not reviewable; others require preservation rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Marts v. State, 332 Ark. 628 (Ark. 1998) (variance and credibility questions for the fact-finder; weight matters for jury)
- Smoak v. State, 385 S.W.3d 257 (Ark. 2011) (jury credibility and weight determinations preserved for review)
- Brown v. State, 60 S.W.3d 422 (Ark. 2001) (any evidence supporting a lesser-included offense justifies instruction)
- Ellis v. State, 47 S.W.3d 259 (Ark. 2001) (even slight evidence supports instruction; standard of review for lesser-included offenses)
- Henderson v. State, 349 Ark. 701 (Ark. 2002) (review of refusal to give lesser-included instruction)