Strain v. State, 423 S.W.3d 1

Strain was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 300 months in the Arkansas DOC; appeals and postconviction relief were denied.
Strain challenged trial counsel's effectiveness for not requesting specific accomplice-liability jury instructions.
This court affirmed, Strain v. State, 2012 Ark. 42, 394 S.W.3d 294, denying relief on the ineffective-assistance claims.
Strain sought rehearing under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 2-3(g), asserting errors in the panel's reasoning on accomplice instructions and related issues.
The court denied rehearing, addressing four substantive arguments about jury instructions and preservation of issues.
The court reaffirmed that where an instruction is implicit in given ones, failure to request it cannot establish reversible error or prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mere-presence instruction was required	Strain contends the court misreasoned that he offered no evidence of mere presence.	State argues implicit inclusion of mere-presence concept in given instructions suffices; error not reversible.	No reversible error; implicit inclusion valid.
Whether failure to request 5-2-403(b) instruction prejudiced Strain	Strain claims 5-2-403(b) should have modified AMI 401 to address mental-state culpability for accomplice liability.	Strain failed to show prejudice; jury properly instructed on mental state for first-degree murder.	No merit; no prejudice shown.
Whether 5-4-406 instruction was mandatory	Strain argues he was entitled to a 5-4-406 instruction tailoring liability to culpable mental state and co-defendant culpability.	Instruction not mandatory where substance is covered by other instructions; not error.	Not mandatory; substance covered by other instructions.
Whether failure to obtain ruling on omitted issue barred review	Argues that not obtaining a ruling should not bar review and mandamus is available to compel rulings.	Rejects procedural default claim; mandamus available and the omission does not warrant relief.	No error; mandamus remedy recognized and petition denied.

Henderson v. State, 80 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2002) (accomplice-liability implicit instruction suffices; mere presence not reversible error)
Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 432 (Ark. 1999) (accomplice liability framework and mental-state requirements)
Strain v. State, 394 S.W.3d 294 (Ark. 2012) (affirmed denial of Rule 37.1 relief; sufficiency of instructions)
Wilson v. State, 222 S.W.3d 171 (Ark. 2006) (no requirement to give 5-2-406 when substance covered by other instructions)
Ventress v. State, 794 S.W.2d 619 (Ark. 1990) (non-model jury instructions; use when substance not covered)
Jackson v. State, 197 S.W.3d 468 (Ark. 2004) (meaning of accomplice; jury instructions sufficient)
Echols v. State, 125 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. 2003) (preserved error standards and prior-law respect)
Beshears v. State, 8 S.W.3d 32 (Ark. 2000) (rule governing omitted issues and mandamus relief)
Costillo v. Goodson, 707 S.W.2d 776 (Ark. 1986) (mandamus to compel circuit court action on petitions)
Ladwig v. Davis, 10 S.W.3d 461 (Ark. 2000) (mandamus and Rule 37.1 context for omitted issues)