You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Ashley v. State

Citations: 310 Ark. 575; 840 S.W.2d 793; 1992 Ark. LEXIS 601Docket: CR 92-270

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; October 12, 1992; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Larry Ashley reported his wife, Debbie Ashley, missing after she failed to return from a weekend trip to Atlanta on April 5, 1991. On April 10, police found her car at the Little Rock airport, with evidence suggesting a violent crime had occurred, including a body in the trunk. Debbie had been shot twice, and Larry admitted to buying the gun and firing the fatal shots, claiming it was an accident and that he subsequently panicked. Charged with capital murder, he was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.

In his appeal, Larry argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charge based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the capital murder statute, but he lacked standing as he did not face the death penalty. He also contended that the trial court should have granted a mistrial after a witness, Debbie Osteen, expressed doubt about his truthfulness regarding his wife's disappearance. The trial court denied the mistrial but issued a curative instruction. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s discretion, noting that a mistrial is a last resort and that the jurors would learn of his dishonesty from his own testimony.

Additionally, Larry argued that the prosecutor’s questions during the trial were prejudicial. However, this claim was dismissed as lacking merit. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Defense counsel's motion for a mistrial was denied by the trial court, which was deemed appropriate given the context of the trial. Testimony revealed the discovery of Debbie Ashley's body in a car trunk, and the questioning regarding the crime scene did not implicate the appellant, nor did it convey an unfair message. The trial court acted within its discretion by denying the mistrial motion.

The appellant subsequently raised another mistrial motion related to the prosecutor's opening statement, which outlined the expected testimony of two witnesses. The court ruled that the opening statement could not be prejudicial if the testimony was later admitted, allowing the appellant to renew the motion only if the testimony proved inadmissible. Since the testimony was admitted without objection, a mistrial was unwarranted.

Three evidentiary challenges were also made by the appellant. First, a hearsay objection to the testimony of Sandra Skinner and Diane Clancy was dismissed because the court had previously sustained the only objection made. Second, a photograph of the victim's body (State’s Exhibit 10) was admitted to clarify a question raised about the victim’s jacket. The trial judge acted within discretion, as even inflammatory images can be permissible if relevant. Finally, a photograph from the autopsy (State’s Exhibit 20) showing gunpowder on the victim's mouth supported the theory of premeditation, justifying its admission.

The court imposed a life sentence without parole, and all objections against the appellant were reviewed, with none found to necessitate a reversal. The judgment was affirmed, with Holt, C.J., and Brown, J. not participating.