State v. Threadgill
2011 Ark. 91
| Ark. | 2011Background
- This is an interlocutory appeal by Arkansas from a circuit court order granting Threadgill’s motion to suppress under Rule 16.2.
- Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Criminal 3(a) grants such State appeals; Rule 3(c) requires this court to review only when the appeal serves the uniform administration of criminal law.
- The suppression issue centers on whether the search warrant adequately described the premises with particularity per ARCrP 13.2(b).
- The warrant described 4218 W. 25th Street, but the informant and testimony showed Threadgill lived at 4210 W. 25th Street; the circuit court found the description lacked particularity.
- The State argued that minor discrepancies in physical description do not defeat the warrant, citing Walley; the circuit court disagreed.
- This court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the decision turned on unique facts rather than the interpretation of criminal rules for uniform administration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review under Rule 3(a) | State: jurisdiction exists to ensure uniform administration. | Threadgill: jurisdiction lacking because decision rests on facts. | No jurisdiction; appeal is dismissed. |
| Whether the misdescription of address renders the warrant invalid | State: minor discrepancy not fatal; description still identifies the place. | Threadgill: description pointed to wrong residence; lacks particularity. | Question decided on unique facts; not an issue of law interpretation for Rule 3. |
| Whether Walley controls authority to review minor discrepancies in property descriptions | State: Walley supports allowing minor discrepancies. | Threadgill: Walley not controlling for this State appeal; different context. | Walley not controlling precedent for this State appeal; jurisdiction denied on facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boyette, 362 Ark. 27 (2005) (state appeals limited to issues of law and uniform administration)
- State v. Nichols, 364 Ark. 1 (2005) (rejects State appeals based on fact-intensive or mixed issues)
- State v. Pruitt, 347 Ark. 355 (2002) (limits on State appellate scope; emphasis on law interpretation)
- Howard, 341 Ark. 640 (2000) (strict property description requirements; per se invalidity not accepted)
- Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586 (2003) (address discrepancy not automatically fatal; not controlling in Rule 3 context)
- Earl, 333 Ark. 489 (1998) (distinguishes interpretation from application; not directly applicable here)