Thompson v. State, 2017 Ark. 328

James Ray Thompson was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape and received consecutive ten-year sentences; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal.
Thompson filed a pro se petition seeking permission to pursue a writ of error coram nobis in the trial court, alleging the prosecutor withheld material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland.
The allegedly withheld material consisted of a 911 audio recording in which the victim said someone “tried” to rape her; Thompson argued this was exculpatory/impeaching and that no transcript or copy had been provided in discovery.
The trial record shows the prosecutor played the entire 911 recording at trial, the audio was admitted into evidence, and the jury heard the victim’s statements; the recording also contained the victim’s affirmation that she had been raped inside her apartment.
Additional trial proof included the victim’s testimony consistent with the 911 call, Thompson’s statements to investigators admitting the crimes, and DNA evidence linking Thompson to the rape.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas found Thompson failed to show a fundamental, extrinsic error necessary for coram nobis relief and denied the petition and his motion to reply to the State’s response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thompson demonstrated Brady material was withheld	The 911 recording (and pages 39–40 of an investigatory file) were not disclosed and contained exculpatory/impeaching statements	The recording was played and admitted at trial; pages 39–40 were in the record of a later hearing and were not suppressed	Denied — recording was in the trial record and not suppressed; no extrinsic fundamental error shown
Whether failure to provide a transcript of the 911 call warranted relief	Transcript was required and its absence prejudiced Thompson	No transcript required where audio was played in open court and jury heard it	Denied — playing the audio satisfied recordation; absence of transcript did not prejudice outcome
Whether prosecutorial misstatement in closing (emphasizing consistency) warrants coram nobis	Prosecutor misled jury by stressing consistency between 911 call and testimony	Statements emphasized admissible, consistent evidence; no prejudice shown	Denied — no Brady or fundamental-error basis shown; prosecutorial remarks not outcome-determinative
Whether investigatory-file pages 39–40 were withheld evidence	Pages allegedly withheld and likely contained the 911 transcript or material	Record shows pages 39–40 were a waiver of rights and consent-to-search form and were included in later pretrial exhibit	Denied — pages were not withheld material and did not support coram nobis relief

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (standards for coram nobis relief; petitioner’s burden)
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (Brady elements and coram nobis context)
Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (Ark. 1984) (naked allegations insufficient for coram nobis relief)
Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2015) (presumption of validity for convictions in coram nobis proceedings)