Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Griswold v. State
Citations: 298 Ark. 397; 768 S.W.2d 35; 1989 Ark. LEXIS 180Docket: CR 88-174
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; April 17, 1989; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
An appeal was made regarding the denial of a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellant, convicted of raping three young girls, previously sought a Rule 37 petition pro se in 1987, arguing that his attorney failed to call key witnesses who could challenge the victims' credibility. This led to a hearing where the attorney, Robert Irwin, acknowledged that he was aware of crucial witnesses, including social worker Linda Bright and psychologist Dr. Alan Klein, but chose not to contact them, relying instead on the testimony of the Griswolds—his brother and sister-in-law—who had relevant information about the victims. Irwin attempted to secure the Griswolds' attendance at trial but faced logistical issues, including a rescheduled trial date and a winter storm that prevented their travel. Despite being informed of their inability to attend the day before the trial, Irwin did not seek a continuance. He later admitted that the Griswolds’ testimony would have been significant, and he believed the trial’s outcome might have been different had they been present. The trial judge denied the appellant’s petition, stating it was not the attorney’s fault that the witnesses did not appear and did not rule on whether Irwin should have requested a continuance. The appellate court found that while the judge's interpretation of the prior order was understandable, it did not align with the expectations of reasonable legal preparation. The case is remanded for the trial judge to reassess whether the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel due to the failure to move for a continuance. If the appellant appeals again, he must provide an abstract of the trial record to demonstrate prejudice. Judges Hays and Glaze dissented.