Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

350 Ark. 265

Newman v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 3, 2002

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 2002-10-03

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2003

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(b) Mandatory review. Whenever a sentence of death is imposed, the Supreme Court shall review the following issues in addition to other issues, if any, that a defendant may enumerate on appeal. Counsel shall be responsible for abstracting the record and briefing the issues required to be reviewed by this rule and shall consolidate the abstract and brief for such issues and any other issues enumerated on appeal. The Court shall consider and determine: (i) pursuant to Rule 4-3 (h) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-113 (a), whether prejudicial error occurred; (ii) whether the trial court failed in its obligation to bring to the jury’s attention a matter essential to its consideration of the death penalty; (iii) whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error about which the defense had no knowledge and therefore no opportunity to object; (iv) whether the trial court failed in its obligation to intervene without objection to correct a serious error by admonition or declaring a mistrial; (v) whether the trial court erred in failing to take notice of an evidentiary error that affected a substantial right of the defendant; (vi) whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances; and (vii) whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Newman v. State

Applies AR 16 § 16-91-113 · AR 19 § 19-4-1604

Relies on Rushing v. State · Tester v. State · Ware v. Miller

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-10-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Robert C. Marquette, a state-salaried, full-time public defender for the Twenty-First Judicial District, was appointed by the trial court to represent Appellant Rickey Newman, an indigent defendant, on the charge of capital murder. Following a trial, Newman was convicted of the charge and sentenced to death. A timely notice of appeal was filed by the circuit clerk, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. — Crim. 10, and the record was timely lodged in this court.

¶2 On August 9, 2002, Mr. Marquette filed a motion to be relieved as attorney for Newman on appeal, pursuant to this court’s holdings in Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000), and Tester v. State, 341 Ark. 281, 16 S.W.3d 227 (2000) (per curiam). We denied the motion because Mr. Marquette failed to indicate whether he is provided a state-funded secretary. Fie has since filed a new motion stating that he does have a full-time, state-funded secretary, which would prevent him from receiving compensation for appellate work. See Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Supp. 2001). Accordingly, we now grant Mr. Marquette’s motion to be relieved for good cause shown. See Jones v. State, 349 Ark. 734, 82 S.W.3d 827 (2002) (per curiam); Williams v. State, 347 Ark. 369, 65 S.W.3d 401 (2002) (per curiam).

¶3We hereby appoint Linda Scribner to replace Mr. Marquette in this appeal. Appointed counsel does not serve as a representative of Newman, but rather, will assist this court in its mandatory review, pursuant to Rule 10. See State v. Robbins, 340 Ark. 255, 9 S.W.3d 500 (2000) (per curiam). Specifically, appointed counsel shall abstract the record and assist this court in determining: (1) whether, pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h) and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-113(a) (1987), any errors raised in the trial court are prejudicial to the defendant; (2) whether the trial court failed in its obligation to bring to the jury’s attention a matter essential to its consideration of the death penalty; (3) whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error about which the defense had no knowledge and therefore no opportunity to object; (4) whether the trial court failed in its obligation to intervene without objection to correct a serious error by admonition or declaring a mistrial; (5) whether the trial court erred in failing to take notice of an evidentiary error that affected a substantial right of the defendant; (6) whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances; and (7) whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. See Rule 10.

¶4Motion granted.

/350/ark/265 · .json · Public domain