Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

348 Ark. 471

79 S.W.3d 273

Howard v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 27, 2002

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 2002-06-27

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-06-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Howard v. State (2006), Howard v. State (2012)

2 federal appellate · 67 state decisions

500200220102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

R AY THORNTON, Justice,

¶1dissenting. I agree with Jus- tice Brown’s dissent concluding that there was not sufficient evidence to convict appellant of the murder of Shannon Day and the attempted murder of Trevor Day and that appellant’s conviction of these charges must be reversed. In addition, I also believe that the evidence to support a conviction for the murder of Brian Day was very thin. Even if the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of appellant’s guilt of the murder of Brian Day, the trial was flawed by errors which in my view require a new trial on the charges relating to Brian Day.

¶2As pointed out in Justice Hannah’s dissent, I agree that the trial court committed several reversible errors during the trial. First, the trial court erred in allowing Penny Granger to testify that Shannon Day believed that she might be pregnant by appellant. Next, I believe the statement made by the prosecutor in closing argument that the last thing Mrs. Day saw before her death was her baby being hung from an extension cord was so prejudicial and inflammatory, not to mention unsupported by any evidence, that a new trial must be ordered. Also, I find the admission of the handcuffs purchased by the police troublesome. I cannot agree with the majority’s reasoning that such flaws do not constitute reversible error.

¶3I am further troubled by the State’s last minute responses in producing evidence sought during discovery, and by the State’s reference to appellant’s failure to testify. In my view, several reversible errors occurred during the trial.

¶4I am also greatly troubled by the skimpy circumstantial evidence linking appellant to the murder of Brian Day, as analyzed by Justice Hannah’s dissent. In my view, even if the minimal amount of evidence is barely sufficient to present the fact question to the jury, the case is deeply flawed by prejudicial errors and I must conclude that a new trial should be ordered for the charge of murdering Brian Day.

¶5In summary, I would reverse and dismiss appellant’s convictions for the murder of Shannon Day and the attempted murder of Trevor Day because of insufficiency of the evidence. I would also reverse appellant’s conviction for the murder of Brian Day, and remand for a new trial on that charge.

¶6I respectfully dissent.

/348/ark/471 · .json · Public domain