Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant filed an illegal-exaction lawsuit against The Oxford American Literary Project, Inc. In his complaint, Appellant asserted that the University of Central Arkansas loaned $700,000 to Oxford American out of its cash funds and that the loan was an improper use of cash funds. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Oxford American, concluding that the funds were not funds derived from taxes and were therefore not subject to an illegal exaction suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was proper because the undisputed facts showed that the cash funds at issue were not generated from and did not arise from taxation. View "McCafferty v. Oxford Am. Literary Project, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder. The jury sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court granted Defendant a new sentencing hearing based on counsel’s admission that his performance had been inadequate. The court, however, denied Defendant relief on the basis that counsel should have presented a defense of mental disease or defect. The State appealed from the first finding, and Defendant appealed from the second finding. The Supreme Court (1) reversed on appeal, holding that the circuit court analyzed the case under a subjective legal standard rather than assessing counsel’s performance under an objective standard; and (2) affirmed on cross-appeal, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying relief based on counsel’s failure to present an affirmative defense. View "State v. Lacy" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of possession of a Schedule III substance with the purpose to deliver, possession of a Schedule III substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a canine sniff conducted after he was pulled over for failing to use a turn signal. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s convictions and sentence, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress where the canine sniff was conducted after Appellant’s continued detention that was conducted without reasonable suspicion. View "MacKintrush v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case were three female same-sex married couples and their children. One spouse in each married couple gave birth to a child, but the Arkansas Department of Health declined to issue a birth certificate with both spouses listed as parents. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaration that Defendant, the Director of the Department, violated their constitutional rights and that certain statutory provisions were unconstitutional. After a hearing, the circuit court announced its intention to order the Department to amend the birth certificates of the child-plaintiffs. Before the written order was entered, Defendant requested a stay pending appeal. The circuit court denied Defendant’s request, ordered Defendant to issue amended birth certificates to Plaintiffs, and struck portions of a statute and made substantial additions to a provision of the Arkansas Code. The Supreme Court (1) denied the petition for emergency stay as to the portions of the order and memorandum opinion ordering Defendant to provide amended birth certificates to Plaintiffs, as Defendant did not challenge this portion of the order; but (2) granted the petition as to the remainder of the order and memorandum opinion, holding that it was best to preserve the status quo ante with regard to the statutory provisions while the Court considered the circuit court’s ruling. View "Smith v. Pavan" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional plea of guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated, sixth offense. Appellant appealed, arguing that his conviction violated the ex post facto clauses of the Arkansas Constitution and United States Constitution. This appeal presented an issue of first impression whether an appeal was allowed from Appellant’s conditional plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the Court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal; and (2) as to the merits, Appellant’s conviction does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution. View "Laymon v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of four counts of computer exploitation of a child in the first degree in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 5-27-605(a) and of twenty counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 5-27-602(a). On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred by not reducing each charge to a single count in violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 5-27-602 does not impose multiple prosecutions for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause, as the statute authorizes separate convictions for each prohibited photograph and videotape that is possessed; and (2) with respect to his convictions under section 5-27-605, Appellant did not provide any argument explaining how his multiple convictions under the statute result in a double-jeopardy violation. View "Rea v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that, based on a totality of the evidence under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. View "Airsman v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. For his sole point on appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from a search warrant that resulted in the search of the contents of his cell phone. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the facts of this case, there was adequate probable cause to issue the search warrant of Appellant’s cell phone records and that the resulting search was proper. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to three counts of rape and was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the writ should issue on the ground that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel with respect to a plea bargain that was offered to him. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the claims in the petition were clearly outside the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding, and therefore, Appellant failed to establish that the writ should issue. View "Schrader v. State" on Justia Law

In 1978, Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, and first-degree battery. Appellant received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for the charge of murder and each of the aggravated-robbery charges. In 2012, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging, among other claims, that his sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for crimes he committed when he was a minor was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared moot or denied the motions filed pertaining to the appeal, holding (1) because Appellant was not subjected to a mandatory sentence of life without parole, Appellant’s sentences were not illegal under Miller v. Alabama; and (2) the remaining assertions raised by Appellant were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. View "Pennington v. Hobbs" on Justia Law