Thacker v. State
2016 Ark. 350
| Ark. | 2016Background
- In 2011, police (in plainclothes, with an arrest warrant for rape) forced entry into Thacker’s apartment; during the arrest Thacker stabbed an officer and was shot.
- Thacker pleaded guilty in August 2011 to attempted capital murder (of the arresting officer) and kidnapping (amended from rape) and received an aggregate 30-year sentence.
- Two videos from the incident (a Taser-mounted camera by Detective McCoy and a body/halo camera by Officer Williams) were not provided to Thacker before his plea; they surfaced years later.
- Thacker petitioned for a writ of error coram nobis alleging (1) Brady suppression of material evidence (the videos), (2) his guilty plea was coerced, and (3) he is actually innocent.
- The circuit court reviewed the videos, denied coram nobis relief; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed on abuse-of-discretion review. The dissent argued a hearing was required because the Taser video was material to a self-defense claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thacker) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were withheld videos material Brady evidence? | McCoy Taser video and Williams camera would support self-defense and impeachment; nondisclosure violated Brady. | Videos were not material to the pleaded Arkansas charges; McCoy video is a limited snapshot and Williams arrived after the stabbing. | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying relief — videos not material to alter outcome. |
| 2. Was Thacker’s guilty plea coerced? | Plea resulted from coercion (denial of medical treatment, alleged torture, other pressures) and ineffective counsel. | Allegations unsubstantiated, partly noncognizable in coram nobis; coercion claims unsupported after four-year delay. | Court: Denial affirmed — coercion claim deficient and not cognizable on coram nobis. |
| 3. Does Thacker’s actual-innocence claim warrant coram nobis relief? | Thacker asserts actual innocence of the charged offenses. | State opposed; circuit court did not rule on this; procedural issues. | Court: Appellate review precluded because circuit court did not rule on actual-innocence claim. |
| 4. Was a hearing required on the coram nobis petition? | Thacker (and dissent) argue the undisclosed McCoy video made the petition not "clearly without merit," so a hearing was required. | Majority: petition was substantively insufficient; Thacker failed to develop the procedural argument; circuit court could deny without hearing. | Court: Majority affirmed denial without hearing; dissent would remand for hearing on materiality of McCoy video. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of favorable material evidence violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (defines materiality standard and elements of a Brady claim)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (reasonable-probability materiality formulation cited by Strickler)
- State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397 (2000) (identifies four categories of errors giving rise to coram nobis relief)