539 S.W.3d 546
Ark.2018Background
- Bruce Earl Ward, convicted of 1989 capital murder and sentenced to death after multiple appeals and resentencings; this motion seeks recall of the mandate from his 1997 resentencing (Ward III).
- Ward repeatedly sought court-appointed mental-health expert assistance under Ake; the trial court ordered state-hospital evaluations but denied funding for an independent expert and denied an ex parte Ake hearing.
- State-hospital psychiatrists evaluated Ward (including attempted 1997 Act III evaluation that terminated when Ward refused to cooperate); those evaluations were relied on by the State at sentencing.
- Post‑conviction filings produced later expert reports (e.g., Dr. William Logan, 2008) diagnosing schizophrenia and opining incompetence at sentencing; those reports were not part of the 1997 record.
- Ward argued that McWilliams v. Dunn (U.S. 2017) clarified Ake to require an expert who meaningfully assists defense (evaluation, preparation, presentation), and he asked this court to recall the mandate and stay execution; the court granted a stay, heard the motion, and denied recall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ward was denied Ake assistance at resentencing | Ward: state-hospital exam did not satisfy Ake because he needed an independent expert to evaluate, prepare, and present mitigation and competency evidence | State: Arkansas statute and precedent establishing state-hospital evaluation satisfies Ake; no threshold showing Ward's sanity at the time of the offense or competence was a significant issue | Denied — court held Ward received constitutionally adequate access via state-hospital exam and failed to make required threshold showing; no appellate-process defect shown |
| Whether McWilliams changed Ake requirements to mandate a defense-retained independent expert | Ward: McWilliams requires independent expert assistance distinct from a neutral/state expert | State: McWilliams did not alter Ake’s basic requirements; it reaffirmed need for assistance but did not create new rule requiring defense-retained expert | Denied — court concluded McWilliams did not alter controlling Ake standard in a way that requires recalling the mandate in Ward’s case |
| Whether the record contains new material evidence or an appellate error warranting recall of the mandate | Ward: new Supreme Court decision and later expert reports show prior proceedings were defective | State: issue previously litigated (law of the case); no materially different evidence in the record at time of appeal; recall is extraordinary relief | Denied — law‑of‑the‑case applies; Ward reargues issues already decided and fails to show extraordinary circumstances or an appellate error |
| Whether this court should overrule its own precedent that state-hospital exams satisfy Ake | Ward: precedent is inconsistent with McWilliams and should be overruled | State: longstanding Arkansas precedent is controlling; overruling not warranted here | Denied — court declined to overrule precedent and held existing practice satisfied Ake as applied to Ward’s record |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (defendant entitled to access to a competent psychiatrist to assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense)
- McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790 (clarified that Ake requires assistance beyond mere examination — help in evaluation, preparation, and presentation)
- Ward v. State, 338 Ark. 619 (state appellate decision affirming Ward’s resentencing; underlying mandate at issue)
- Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556 (recall-of-mandate is extraordinary relief; discussed factors for reopening death‑penalty appeals)