Meadows v. State

Marie of Arkansas Terese MEADOWS STATE 199 S.W.3d CR 04-331 Court of Arkansas 9, 2004 delivered December Opinion denied 13, 2005.*] [Rehearing January * Hannah, C.J., Corbin,J., rehearing. grant would & Cathleen V.

Dudley Compton, by; Compton, appellant. Beebe, Gen., Borkowski, Mike Ass’t Wilson Att’y by: Att’y Misty Gen., for appellee. Robert L. Terese Marie Brown, Appellant Justice. from of an order the Carroll appeals County

Meadows murder, arson, Court her of and Circuit convicting capital tampering her to term of life with evidence and sentencing imprisonment ten and three without parole, years’ imprisonment, years’ imprison- ment, to be on served Meadows concurrently. argues respectively, that the circuit erred her motion for directed (1) appeal denying verdict, her convic- because there was insufficient evidence to support arson; and erred in tions for murder and circuit court (2) capital mistrial, for a because the returned inconsis- her motion denying of tent the offenses murder and second-degree verdicts regarding capital merit, are without and we affirm. murder. Meadows’s arguments 7, 2001, The record reveals that on November Lorraine “Lori” been Pattison was in a trailer home in Carroll that she had 'County Meadows, husband, with Dale Terese Meadows’s sharing estranged it and when fire Dale Meadows was arrested caught destroyed. murder and arson.1 received infor- charged capital Investigators with mation that Terese Meadows had the scene of “Tracy” gone fire and to remove the victim’s Meadows admit- attempted body. ted that she had done this and stated that she did so in attempt husband, her Dale Meadows. She also told protect police Dale had killed Meadows Lori Pattison.

n Later, law enforcement received information that Tracy Meadows had also been involved in Lori Pattison’s death. Tracy Meadows was arrested and with subsequently charged premedi- tated murder and the alternative with capital capital-felony murder with arson as the Meadows was also underlying felony. with arson and with charged evidence. A tampering physical 5-7, trial was held on 2003'. August presentation Following evidence, State’s Meadows moved directed verdict on the arson, murder and charges which the court capital-felony Thereafter, denied. Meadows her case and then renewed presented motions, her directed-verdict which the circuit court de- again nied.

The State that the circuit requested court instruct the murder as first-degree second-degree lesser-included offenses murder. Meadows’s counsel to these instruc- objected tions, because she reasoned that “if to find her going [the is] homicide, it would be any murder and not on.” anything they The court overruled might compromise Meadows’s and instructed the objection the offenses of murder, murder, premeditated capital capital-felony first-degree murder, murder, and with evidence. tampering 1 Dale Meadows was convicted of August murder and arson on 14,2003. This judgment affirmed his of conviction. v.State, SeeMeadows 396, 191 S.W.3d instructions, en- and counsel judge

After administering about arson instruction: in the conversation following gaged were not I did read two instructions that The Court: is,the That standard concluding discussed in chambers. I the instruction for on added instructions findings, that were and the instruction tampering arson me. I read it off of this one.2 presented just fine,Your That’s Honor. [Defense Counsel]: available We’ll those and have them prepare Court: further to be into the room. Anything placed go record, at this on the point, [Prosecutor]? of,Your Honor. Not that I’m aware [Prosecutor]: [Defense Counsel]? The Court: No, sir. [Defense Counsel]: to the arson instruc- Defense Counsel made no objection pertaining tion. into delib-

After sent the closing arguments, judge deliberation, sent note erations. After some judge asking following questions:

Are we to decide? supposed 1) Murder Capitol [sic]

2) Murder lrst Capitol Degree [sic] [sic] 3) Murder 2nd Capitol Degree [sic] One, Two, or all Decide between 3? instructions, all

The court including reinstructed following: If the defendant’s on the you have reasonabledoubt of guilt murder, charge will then consider the

charge you of capital 2 Though judge jury, he an arson instruction to the no the circuit indicates that read appeal. arson instruction found the record the the If have reasonabledoubt of you murder in first a degree. on the the degree,you defendant’s of murder in first guilt charge will of murder in the charge consider seconddegree. murder, The returned verdicts Meadows of finding guilty capital murder, arson, and evidence. with second-degree tampering physical then stated that court prosecutor sentencing Meadows to murder and was murder double capital second-degree murder, of Meadows jeopardy suggested finding guilty capital offense. Meadows’s counsel stated she that higher thought inconsistent verdicts.” The each court “they’ve got on polled juror or whether his her verdict was was of guilty that.Meadows a murder reasonable capital doubt. After all twelve beyond jurors the court found that Meadows was responded affirmatively, murder. The court on its capital subsequently polled for the offenses arson and of with findings guilt tampering evidence. Each juror for each ver- again responded affirmatively commenced, dict. The of the trial and the court sent penalty phase to deliberate Meadows’s sentences. It returned sentences murder, for life without for imprisonment ten parole capital years’ arson, for and three imprisonment for tam- years’ imprisonment with evidence. pering

After the sentencing Meadows’s phase completed, counsel for moved a declaration aof mistrial on account inconsistent verdicts murder and second- regarding capital murder convictions. The degree so sentencing postponed 29, 2003, it could research the issue. On the court held August on Meadows’s after hearing briefs from the sentencing receiving At the conclusion of parties. the court denied Mead- hearing, mistrial, ows’s motion for murder disregarded verdict, and sentenced Meadows to life without imprisonment parole. circuit court entered Subsequently, its judgment conviction and its order the motion for a denying mistrial.

I. Motion DirectedVerdict first Meadows circuit court argues appeal erred verdict, her motion for directed because the denying State failed to establish sufficient verdicts on the proof support jury’s offenses of murder and arson. Meadows argues Specifically, insufficient, that the evidence was because the testimony inherently improbable, unbelievable. physically impossible, The State that sufficient evidence responds Meadows’s supports with the State arson. We agree murder and

conviction Meadows’s court did err denying that the circuit and hold directed verdict. motion for to the is a directed verdict challenge

A motion for State, 354 Ark. 119 See Barrettv. of the evidence. sufficiency such motions is whether The test for (2003). 485 S.W.3d. evidence, or circumstan direct substantial is verdict supported of sufficient evidence certainty Substantial evidence is tial. See id. and or another a conclusion one way pass to and compel precision we review Id. On mere or conjecture. appeal, suspicion beyond to the favorable in the most appellee the evidence light Moreover, Id. the verdict. evidence that consider only supports for this is an for the of witnesses issue the credibility resolve conflicting testimony court. Id. jury may questions to believe the State’s evidence and choose and inconsistent may Id. rather than the defendant’s. account of facts had failed to that State argue Because Meadows evidence on the alternative charge sufficient not presented murder, this she failed to argument.3 preserve premeditated Therefore, P. we will address R. Crim. 33.1. only See Ark. murder and arson. Meadows’s arguments regarding capital-felony as the under murder with arson A commits person capital-felony if: felony lying he or one or more other

(2) (1) persons, alone with Acting arson, and in and the courseof commitsor to commit attempts therefrom, or or he an felony flight furtheranceof in immediate any causesthe death of accomplice personf.] Under 1997). Ann. 5-10-101 (a)(2) capital-felony Ark. Code (Repl. § murder, so the becomes the State must first felony, felony prove an element of the murder See Williams charge. case, that commit- this to Meadows S.W.3d 548 In prove moved for directed verdict on murder” Meadows’s counsel Tracy specifically “capital arguing no arson or arson, and on that evidence presented prove capital-felony prove tampering verdict on the then that she would not move for directed

murder. She explained tampering. such The State in its discussed charge Meadows admitted to because response murder. arson and premeditated murder, arson as the ted the State capital-felony required prove A if he a fire or causes commits arson starts underlying felony. person with the or otherwise destroying damaging: explosion purpose or (1) An structure motor vehicle occupiable prop- or erty another person;

(3) whether his own or that another if Any property, person, act createsa risk of death or thereby serious negligently physical any injury person[.]

Ark. Code Ann. 5-38-301 & (a)(1) (3) 1997). (Repl. §

Evidence at trial revealed Meadows arrived at presented the trailer home of Diane Green Forest November Sprague 7, 2001, at 4:30 Meadows left approximately p.m. subsequently home and returned between 8:00 and 8:30 to Sprague’s p.m. debt, collect $20 owed Meadows. To the Sprague satisfy instead to for Meadows at the Sprague agreed groceries buy car, in Wal-Mart Harrison. Each her took own and the women met in the Wal-Mart lot. After parking purchasing groceries, women went their for her car separate ways. Sprague gas bought and made a few calls aat before telephone pay back phone driving home, to Green Forest. When she returned found Sprague Tracy and Dale in Meadows her home. Dale Meadows told Sprague his trailer home had he and that tried but failed to exploded remove Lori Pattison from fire. 8, 2001,

Around 12:30 a.m. on November Easter Gay Lynn the trailer home owned Bob and passed Dale by Trigg occupied by Meadows and Lori Pattison. Easter testified that the trailer home had and was around She tried collapsed burning to edges. but was notify unable to contact him. then Trigg She telephoned the Carroll Sheriffs to County fire. Kim Department report Marshall, a with the sheriff s dispatcher took Easter’s department, Marshall, call. to no one the fire According reported except shift, Easter her which from 12:00 a.m. until during 8:00 a.m. on November 2001. fire, Coleman, After notified of the being Gary Captain the Green Forest Volunteer Fire first to arrive Department, Coleman, at the scene. to no one was around According the trailer home when he arrived and the structure was “already completely to see if there that he testified attempted down.” Coleman

burned home, see he could not in trailer but anything was anyone dark in area. because it was too arrived and Dale Meadows testified that Tracy Patty Lively 2001. in the November Lively at her home morning early had her that Dale Meadows Meadows told testified that Tracy to her to the fire and with asked Lively go killed Lori Pattison scene, walked at the Meadows arrived Tracy scene. When they She was located. the area where Lori Pattison’s body to directly remains were Lori Pattison’s told that the Lively body’s then them, of bone to break. Lively then touched causing piece to the area she Meadows leave by prom- testified that convinced move the body. later return her her that she would help ising home, and and Dale Tracy The women returned Lively’s her Brice Sneed and left. then contacted neighbor Meadows Lively Meadows and to the fire scene with him about Tracy told going a.m., At about 9:30 about Meadows body. Tracy touching Sheriffs County Department contacted Carroll Sneed fire. died the trailer home Lori Pattison had in inform them that Alan Hoos with the Carroll Sheriffs County Investigator call. testified that he received Sneed’s Investigator Department the scene to search Hoos and Lieutenant Ballard visited Leighton remains, of a found near the remnants human which they any then contacted Arkansas State Police for bed frame. officers investigation. assistance Hoos, scene, at fire he while Investigator

According her He conducted a noticed Meadows drive vehicle. Tracy and she was traffic on Meadows subsequently transported stop to Lieutenant the sheriffs interview. According department Ballard, and admitted that she found touched the Meadows body for whatever had stated that Dale Meadows was responsible but with the Arkansas State Tracy investigator happened. Spencer, interview, testified that conducted Meadows’s also Police who do with Lori stated that she had nothing Meadows Tracy the Pattison’s death or with fire. Lab, the Crime A forensic with Arkansas State pathologist Erickson, he examined the remains of Lori

Dr. Steven testified that remains, the Dr. Erickson was Pattison. Due to the condition of stab the victim had suffered wounds. unable to determine whether alive the fire and Dr. that she was at time the But Erickson stated died from smoke inhalation. trial, he

At the Thomas Conner testified that was in jury trailer home with Dale Meadows and Lori Pattison November and all that had been alcoholic drinking they beverages Conner, with a Meadows arrived Tracy folding day. According knife her and where was. in hand asked Lori Pattison Meadows then into went the bedroom where Lori Pattison was from hiding thereafter, her. Lori Conner heard Pattison scream Shortly Dale Meadows next went the bedroom. He into later help. to the and returned room stated that Meadows had living Tracy killed Lori that Pattison. Conner testified Dale Meadows had blood on his forearms and his blue and told him to leave. jeans As he Conner saw Dale take a Meadows can of leaving, kerosene from front and enter the trailer home it. with porch addition, In Earl Lee Sewell testified at trial that he overheard Meadows that she killed say Lori Pattison. Eddie Tracy Monarch alsotestified that Craig Meadows told him that she

Tracy killed Pattison, Lori that Dale Meadows kerosene poured throughout home, trailer and he that and Meadows lit onit fire. Tracy evidence

Reviewing in most presented light favorable to the State and the evidence that only considering verdict, that there was substantial evidence supports jury’s pre sented to conclusion that Meadows was compel jury’s murder and arson. The heard testimony Meadows admitted Lori and Pattison that she was killing involved in fire the trailer starting home that caused Lori eventually Pattison’s death. Meadows’s that the arguments testimony inherently improbable, physically unbelievable are impossible, It falls within unpersuasive. of the to resolve province evidence, questions and inconsistent conflicting testimony chose in the instant case to believe the witnesses support the State’s ing the case rather than theory the defendant’s. Meadows’s argument of the regarding evidence sufficiency without merit.

II. Mistrial Motion For her second Meadows that the circuit point, argues mistrial, abused its discretion the her motion for a because denying returned inconsistent verdicts for murder and murder. Meadows also inconsis- argues was not cured the court’s tency by or its reinstructing alone, the verdict because on the murder capital polling on for second- also its verdict court should have polled murder. degree that a is an extreme

We have said mistrial remedy and cannot be used when error is beyond should be only repair State, See, v. 342 Ark. curative relief. corrected by any e.g., Ray A court’s decision or 27 S.W.3d 384 circuit grant of an abuse be disturbed absent showing a mistrial will not deny of discretion. See id. matter,

As an initial we whether this question point was for After the verdicts jury’s regarding capital preserved appeal. read, first defense murder were counsel murder first-degree verdicts.” Meadows con said: “I think inconsistent they’ve got issue, was but this is all that tends that this enough preserve made; did No was nor Meadows’s said. express objection move for a mistrial. After the counsel judge polled murder, that the he announced: “The Court finds defen capital dant been found murder.” Meadows has guilty again capital decision; nor made no to the did she objection capital-murder Indeed, no motion for a mistrial was made on move for mistrial. had its verdicts until after the returned verdicts inconsistent Hence, for after the the mistrial motion sentencing penalty phase. at does not to have been made first See appear opportunity. State, v. 33 S.W.3d 115 (2000) (motion Ferguson barred not made at first mistrial when opportunity). procedurally defense mere that the verdicts counsel’s stating Certainly belief were inconsistent is not enough. But in addition Meadows’s preservation point, State, v. are without merit. See arguments appeal Ferguson supra addressed, mistrial motion motion although (legitimacy denying to be made She contends the verdicts of late). appeared capital murder and murder were inconsistent and should second-degree has be allowed to stand. This court found “inconsistent” to be verdicts or verdicts those with some impossibility logical See findings. Ray improbability implicit jury’s supra. hand, In the at confusion on the case ostensible any verdict evidenced forms jury’s part completion when both murder and murder cured on whether each circuit jurors judge polled individually murder had found that Meadows was juror beyond

17 he or a reasonable doubt. Each affirmatively juror responded had. she The then followed the of sentencing finding guilt, phase the sentenced Meadows to life without jury prison parole. individual on whether this was each

Polling jurors a verdict is reasonable method for juror’s entirely confirming Indeed, verdict. this court affirmed a death sentence recently where each confirmed that that was his or her decision. See juror 225, State, Robbins v. 356 Ark. 149 S.W.3d 871 Further (2004). more, in a case with facts of the those instant very analogous case, the Court held that where the Wyoming found offenses, the defendant of both and lesser greater guilty polling on the offenses and the defendant accord greater sentencing State, was the See v. ingly way 695 appropriate proceed. Johnson P.2d 638 1985). (Wyo. addition, In jurors polling murder as well as murder was not The had required. assured the circuit that each already member had determined judge doubt, Meadows was murder a reasonable guilty beyond which, course, is a homicide two than second- degrees higher Moreover, murder. this court discussed Ark. Code degree Ann. 5-1-110(b) (1987) (lesser-included in a case offenses), involving § more for than one offense prosecution for same conduct under Ark. Code Ann. 5-1-110(a) (1987): § ... We have this statute to mean a repeatedly interpreted offense,but, defendant bemay for more than prosecuted one under circumstances, a

specified judgment conviction be may only State, 217, 667 entered one of the offenses. Hickersonv. 282 Ark. State, 128, (1984); S.W.2d v. Swaite 272 Ark. 612 S.W2d 307 (1981). best Perhaps example way the statute is intended work is the case a where is prosecutor entitled to the go offense, and ask for conviction or the greater lesser and the find a jury might defendant of both the lesserincluded offense statute, and the Under greater offense. court trial should enter the of conviction for the judgment only greater conviction. The of the statute in such is a case to allow a purpose conviction the lesserincluded offensewhen the accused is not convicted of the offense, but the trial greater directed to clearly allow on each prosecution charge. State, 282,

Hill v. 862 S.W.2d See also discusses supra. what quoted language specifically Johnson verdict returns a for a circuit should do when greater judge enter It shall judgment lesser-included offense. says judge offense, here. the circuit did which is what judge precisely greater Indeed, decision and referred to Hill the circuit specifically judge it sentence.4 relied on before pronouncing an arson a final we note instruction

As point, record, the circuit included in the even judge specifi not though announced, he that had instructed as this cally quoted opinion, course, it of the is the arson. Of obligation appellant jury this record for court with complete purposes appeal. present State, See, v. 309 Ark. 827 S.W.2d 642 (1992); Shankle e.g., further 827 S.W.2d We Heinze that had not been observe even if arson instruction given, alternative, instructed, still in the murder was jury capital deliberated The committed with and jury premeditated purpose. could well have convicted Meadows of premeditated capital offense, instructed all of which would murder since it was on that no render the arson instruction irrelevant. We find certainly reversible error in this regard. short, entered for the

In the circuit judge judgment individu offense found after jury jurors greater by polling to be certain of their verdict as additional ally guilty precaution. in the returned a sentence penalty phase subsequently — without which murder not second- life relates to parole, capital did abuse his murder. We hold the circuit degree judge discretion in the motion for a mistrial. denying

This been errors record has reviewed for any prejudicial Meadows accordance with Arkansas Court Rule and there are we find none. 4-3(h), Affirmed. and dissent. JJ., Thornton, Hannah,

Corbin, I onald L. must Justice, dissenting. respectfully Corbin, by I am both distressed the conclusions dissent. baffled and argument, As a final Meadows with two in her this court inconsistency presents point dismissed, sentences that state that her arson conviction should be because no evidence was evidence We have determined in this substantial support. already opinion presented guilty verdict that was of arson. Meadows presented support reached in the I instant case. do not understand by majority simply how the can determine that no error resulted from the majority of both murder and finding Appellant guilty capital second-degree Likewise, murder for a crime. it is realm of single beyond my as to how the can conclude that it comprehension majority arson, for the to convict appropriate Appellant possibly, murder, in the absence of an arson instruction. capitalfelony complete I am Quite distressed the trend I honestly, see in this emerging convictions, defects, criminal serious trial uphold as despite as it that there is long evidence to a appears defen- ample pointing served, dant’s is not guilt. are being dangerous precedents Justice establishedwith cases being such as the one. present I must first address the erroneous conclusion that majority’s no error occurred when the trial court convicted Appellant murder after the capital returned verdicts on both murder and murder. In of its con- support clusion, the avers that the trial court majority cured any possible when it irregularity on the verdict polled murder. This conclusion First, two critical facts. ignores there is no absolutely whether way would knowing have jury unanimously agreed had found they Appellant guilty murder if the court second-degree had also them on this polled Second, verdict. and more the note sent to the trial importantly, deliberations indicated during that the believed each jurors of the murder to be charges murder. varying types “capital” Thus, when the trial court polled on jury simply “capital” murder, who knows if even they understood that each of the were not charges assumed, murder. It “capital” cannot be as the does, that the majority intended to the harshest impose conviction. In so the fact doing, that the majority ignores found of the Appellant offense of guilty murder. first-degree Unlike the I do not majority, believe that the trial court’s action clarified the sufficiently inconsistent verdicts. Furthermore, State, reliance on Hill v. majority’s 314

Ark. 862 S.W.2d 836 (1993), is more than a nothing thinly veiled the erroneous attempt justify result it reaches in this case. Hill is as wholly demonstrated inapplicable, the lack of discus- sion of the case in the There, the defendant majority opinion. with or charged with intent to manufacturing manufac- possessing ture or deliver a controlled substance and or with using possessing intent to use Fie drug was convicted and paraphernalia. sentenced for both offenses. On this court appeal, reversed both convictions court, in This of evidence. in the admission basis of an error on the issues, defendant’s dicta, other including on to examine went of both and convicted not be that he could prosecuted contention of conduct. course a continuing because constituted they charges be the fact that a defendant may and discussed This court disagreed if offense and and a lesser-included a for both greater prosecuted It for the offense. be sentenced greater of both could found guilty case in an on this attempt chooses rely is clear that majority issue, did not understand that the the real namely to confuse thus, and, inconsistent returned to them the instructions given verdicts. v. reliance on is majority’s misplaced Equally Johnson is a case that involved this P.2d 638 1985). Again, (Wyo. offense after of a who was convicted greater

a defendant and the lesser-included on both the verdicts greater returned guilty inconsistent verdicts. to do with It has nothing offenses. absolutely it is under case there is no Arkansas point, Because precisely from other jurisdic that the looks guidance standable tions, majority caseswhere the issue should be from but guidance sought Porter, verdicts. Such a case of inconsistent People is one There, verdicts of but returned guilty (Ill. 1995). ajury N.E.2d915 murder, as well as counts of ill on two first-degree mentally counts of ill on two verdicts of but mentally trial court jury’s offense. The rejected murder for single and both of murder on one of the counts first-degree findings entered murder and judgment the counts of second-degree murder. count of remaining first-degree Court, the Illinois The defendant appealed that it was inconsistent and that the verdicts were arguing the convictions. three of for the trial court disregard improper defendant was entitled to and ordered that the The court agreed trial, murder cannot be both that a provoked new stating single law, that under Illinois the court noted In so ruling, unprovoked. In murder murder is mitigation. first-degree plus second-degree words, without murder is committed any provo- other cation, first-degree defendant is results when the murder while second-degree Otherwise, of first and all the elements in manner. some provoked are identical. murder second-degree inconsistent, the that the verdicts were After determining court erred determined that the trial then Illinois Court court, to the three of the verdicts. According in rejecting simply additional instructions have jury the trial court should provided back that the then sent the jury would resolve inconsistency rule, this the court stated: for further deliberations. In explaining circumstances, to enter it is for a trial court Under such improper the on one or the verdicts and vacate other more of judgment The thisrule is that a trialcourt not may verdicts. rationalebehind innocenceor second- by functionto determine usurp jury’s guilt which wasintended the jury verdict which guessing guilty by result wasthe of somemisconception. Alamo,

Id. at 921 483 N.E.2d 203 (citing (Ill. 1985)). People Porter, as in the trial court in the instant case second- Just intended, verdict the which guessed thereby jury’s usurping Yes, function trial court’s of the determining guilt. jury poll resulted in unanimous that the intended agreement jury reiterate, verdict on the I murder. must we charge capital Again, have no whether have would also way knowing jury had found agreed unanimously they Appellant guilty murder. With to the verdict of regard murder, the determined that murdered Lori Patti- Appellant or, son with and deliberated premeditated purpose alternatively, that she killed her in the course of of arson. committing felony also determined that committed Appellant second-degree- murder the death of Ms. Pattison under by knowingly causing circumstances an extreme indifference value of manifesting human life. these two found that Despite findings, did Ms. cause Pattison’s death when it Appellant purposely her on the murder. acquitted charge first-degree When verdicts, returned these inconsistent the trial court should have further instructions and ordered the provided to continue action, There deliberations. for such as a certainly precedent similar situation addressed the trial court in Barnumv. There, 594 S.W.2d 229 this affirmed the trial court’s denial of a after the mistrial court clarified any in verdicts them ambiguity to continue jury’s by ordering deliberations until the verdicts were consistent. Because no such case, action was taken this it is ascertain impossible jury’s true intent. Before this I must note one final leaving point, irregularity conclusion, As another basis its logic. majority’s supporting 22

murder, murder. This fact has no bearing not second-degree death was never on the intent. The whatsoever jury’s penalty Moreover, that once the trial case. the record reflects this sought had been convicted of court determined that capital Appellant murder, to a form sentenc- it instructed the sign jury’s foreperson sentence to life only ing imprisonment, permissible Appellant words, the did not murder. In other for remaining capital the murder conviction. deliberate sentence for Appellant’s instruction, I arson now to the issue of the Turning missing function of must out that this court has jury’s point usurped not committed felony whether or determining arson, Appellant murder. It is clear from the record as well as felony arson, that the trial court never instructed the on the offense murder or either as the for standing underlying felony short, there instruction to the them alone. In is no jury providing with the elements that the State was order required prove out, the trial find of arson. As majority Appellant guilty points instruction, as well as an court stated that it added both an arson However, with evidence. the record instruction tampering and, times, reflects that the instructions were read twice both instruction was but the arson instruction was given tampering not read. It is as the that the highly majority implies, improbable, of the arson instruction was the left out of reading only thing record, once, A better conclusion is that it not but twice. given.

In that there was sufficient evidence determining supporting determination that committed arson jury’s Appellant murder, the is in rank majority engaging capital felony speculation. crimes, the elements of the there is no Without knowing simply that the could have determined that way properly Appellant committed It is that it not for this court those offenses. axiomatic is witnesses, the evidence or assessthe as weigh credibility See, that determination lies within the of the trier of fact. province State, 630, v. 355 Ark. 254 v. (2004); S.W.3d Strom e.g.,Jones State, 74 S.W.3d 233 (2002); Harmon Yet, is Ark. 8 S.W.3d 472 what precisely it in this case. If is majority doing acceptable crime, determine the elements of the then without guilt knowing this court should do with the Arkansas Criminal away Jury Instructions. that this issue I would conclude anticipate majority review,

is not for our as it was not raised in the trial court preserved Indeed, Ark. in St. Clair v. 783 or on appeal. time this court refused to consider for first S.W.2d (1990), that the trial court erred allegation by refusing give appeal Clair, however, instruction. is from St. distinguishable particular the instant case. The instruction at issue in that case involved Moreover, be to a statement. this court hearsay weight given refused to consider the because trial court was not argument Here, to correct the error. given missing opportunity instruction sets forth the elements that the State is required addition, in order to obtain a conviction. In the trial court prove instruction, stated on the record that he added the arson but for reason, Thus, whatever it was never read to the the trial court jury. had an to correct the error. opportunity Louisiana,

In Sullivan v. 508 U.S. 275 the United (1993), States Court reversed a defendant’s conviction for first- murder because the reasonable-doubt degree instruction given deficient. In so Court constitutionally ruling, out that the to trial in criminal pointed cases is a right by jury fundamental The Court further noted that the most right. impor- tant element of this is to have the rather than the right jury, judge, reach the Id. In further requisite finding guilt. elaborating this the Court stated: principle,

What the factfindermustdetermineto return averdictof the Due prescribedby ProcessClause. The prosecutionbears burden of all elementsof the offense proving and must charged, persuade factfinder “beyond reasonabledoubt” of the facts to establisheach of those necessary elements. This beyond-a- reasonable-doubt whichwas requirement, adheredto all byvirtually common-law jurisdictions, state as well as federal applies pro- ceedings.

Id. at 277-78 (citations omitted). in this case has been denied her to a Appellant trial right by as her the Sixth guaranteed Amendment. It cannot be said

that the State a reasonable doubt all of the proved beyond elements of arson and murder because the capital felony was never instructed on those elements and the burden State’s in proving Instead, them. has assumed the majority role of improperly factfinder and determined that there was sufficient evidence to convictions. In so support Appellant’s has doing, majority as the dictates violated both constitutional as well principles, our role as an court. governing appellate reasons, For the above-stated I dissent. respectfully Hannah, Thornton in this dissent. JJ., join Charles RODGERS v. STATE of Arkansas Gentry CA 04-534 199 S.W.3d 625 Court of Arkansas 9, 2004 delivered December

Opinion notes sentenced majority jury subsequently Appellant life without a term consistent with imprisonment parole,

Case Details

Case Name: Meadows v. State

Court Name: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date Published: Dec 9, 2004

Citation: 199 S.W.3d 634

Docket Number: CR 04-331

Court Abbreviation: Ark.