Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 6, 1977; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Frank Holt, Justice, affirmed the jury's conviction of the appellant for arson, imposing a four-year prison sentence. The appellant challenged the jury selection process, claiming it was arbitrary and violated statutory provisions. The jury panels were formed by commissioners appointed by both the Criminal and Civil Division judges, who drew names from a jury wheel. The Criminal Division subsequently borrowed ten jurors from the Civil Division due to a shortage. The court found no substantial irregularity in this process, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. 39-215, which outlines the grounds for jury challenges.
Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial court erred by not allowing her to submit instructions regarding the potential accomplicity of two state witnesses. The court determined that the existing jury instructions adequately covered the issue, and thus, there was no error in refusing the appellant’s proposed instructions.
The appellant also contended there was insufficient corroborating evidence for the accomplices' testimonies. While one witness, France, admitted to committing the arson at the appellant's behest, another witness, Clark, denied being an accomplice. The court held that the determination of whether a witness is an accomplice is a factual issue for the jury, especially in cases of conflicting evidence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The trial court's denial of the appellant’s motion for a new trial was upheld, as there was no abuse of discretion demonstrated. The court has broad authority in such matters, and a ruling will only be reversed if it is shown that the discretion was abused or if there was manifest prejudice to the appellant. Testimony from the appellant, several spectators, and a defense witness alleged that jurors interacted with state witnesses and court officials during breaks and deliberations. However, court officials and nine jurors testified to the contrary, asserting no irregularities occurred. The trial court concluded that there was no evidence of improper conduct, affirming that the appellant was not denied a fair and impartial trial. This decision is supported by precedents cited. The ruling was affirmed by the Chief Justice and two other justices.
