Arkansas Code, Constitutions, 2011 Supplement

2011·8.2 MB·English

by  State of Arkansas

Arkansas Code
OF
1987
Annotated
SUPPLEMENT
2011
CONSTITUTIONS
Place in pocket of bound volume
Prepared by the Editorial Staffofthe Publisher
Under the Direction and Supervision ofthe
ARKANSAS CODE REVISION COMMISSION
Senator David Johnson, Chair
Senator Sue Madison
Representative John Vines
Representative Darrin Williams
Honorable Bettina E. Brownstein
Honorable Don Schnipper
Honorable David R. Matthews
Honorable Stacy Leeds, Dean, University ofArkansas at
Fayetteville, School ofLaw
Honorable John DiPippa, Dean, University ofArkansas at
Little Rock, School ofLaw
Honorable Warren T. Readnour, SeniorAssistant Attorney General
Honorable Marty Garrity, Assistant Director for Legal Services of
the Bureau ofLegislative Research
U* LexisNexis
©
Copyright 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011
BY
The State ofArkansas
All Rights Reserved
LexisNexis andthe KnowledgeBurstlogo areregisteredtrademarks, andMichieis atrademark
ofReedElsevierPropertiesInc. usedunderlicense. MatthewBenderisaregisteredtrademarkof
Matthew BenderProperties Inc.
For information about this Supplement, see the
Supplementpamphletfor Volume 1
5048919
ISBN 978-0-327-10031-7 (Code set)
ISBN 978-0-8205-8506-2 (Constitutions)
LexisNexis@
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
701 East Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902
www.lexisnexis.com
(Pub.40604)
CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
OF
1874
ARTICLE. 7. Judicial Department.
3. Franchise and Elections. 19. Miscellaneous Provisions.
5. Legislative Department.
ARTICLE 2
Declaration of Rights
§ 2. Freedom and independence.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Ark. L. Rev. Lessons From Lake View: Annual Survey of Caselaw, Constitu-
Some Questions and Answers from Lake tional Law, 25 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee, 908. —
56Ark. L. Rev. 519. Note, Constitutional—Law Education
The New Judicial Federalism Takes and Equal Protection Towards Intelli-
Root inArkansas, 58Ark. L. Rev. 883. gence andVirtue:Arkansas Embarks ona
U.Ark.LittleRockL.Rev. Note: Con- Court-Mandated Search for an Adequate
stitutional Law-Privacy and Equal Pro- and Equitable School Funding System.
tection-Arkansas Joins Other States in a Lake View School District No. 25 v.
Revival of State Constitutions as Guard- Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472
ians of Individual Rights, Establishing (2002), 26 U.Ark. Little RockL. Rev. 143.
New Protections for Arkansas Gays and Funding the Education of Arkansas's
Lesbians, Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, Children:ASummaryoftheProblemsand
80 S.W.3d 332 (2002), 25 U. Ark. Little Challenges, 27 U.Ark. Little RockL. Rev.
Rock L. Rev. 681. 1.
§ 3. Equality before the law.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR. Federal and state constitutional tection-Arkansas Joins Other States in a
provisions and state statutes as prohibit- Revival of State Constitutions as Guard-
ing employment discrimination based on ians of Individual Rights, Establishing
heterosexual conduct or relationship. 123 New Protections for Arkansas Gays and
A.L.R.5th 411. Lesbians, Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600,
Application of Class-of-One Theory of 80 S.W.3d 332 (2002), 25 U. Ark. Little
Equal Protection to Public Employment. Rock L. Rev. 681.
32A.L.R.6th 457. Annual Survey of Caselaw, Constitu-
Ark. L. Rev. Lessons From Lake View: tional Law, 25 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Some Questions and Answers from Lake 908. —
View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee, Note, Constitutional—Law Education
56Ark. L. Rev. 519. and Equal Protection Towards Intelli-
The New Judicial Federalism Takes gence andVirtue:ArkansasEmbarksona
Root inArkansas, 58Ark. L. Rev. 883. Court-Mandated Search for an Adequate
U.Ark.LittleRockL.Rev.Note: Con- and Equitable School Funding System.
stitutional Law-Privacy and Equal Pro- Lake View School District No. 25 v.
Art. 2, § 3 CONSTITUTION OFARKANSAS
Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472 Children:ASummaryoftheProblemsand
(2002), 26 U.Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 143. Challenges, 27 U.Ark. Little RockL. Rev.
Funding the Education of Arkansas's 1.
CASE NOTES
Analysis pal liability was imposed on the city as it
Class Legislation. permitted the officer to establish and to
Discrimination. carry out a custom and practice ofengag-
Medical Malpractice. ing in racial profiling. The officer's true
Taxation. objective was not to enforce traffic laws
Workers' Compensation Benefits. prohibitingpeoplefrom drivingwiththeir
vision obstructed or other minor infrac-
Class Legislation. tions; rather, theneutraltrafficlawswere
Whereatobaccoproductsmanufacturer used as a pretext forharassing Hispanics
which did not participate in a settlement (whether here legally or illegally), for ob-
between states and tobacco companies al- taining money through fines and towing
leged that an amendment to a statute charges for the financially troubled city,
implementing the settlement provided and to provide an incentive for Hispanics
—
unequal treatment depending upon to move out of the area clearly illegiti-
whether an entity participated or did not mate objectives. Giron v. City of Alex-
participate in the settlement, no equal ander, 693 F. Supp. 2d 904 (E.D. Ark.
protection violation was shown since the 2010).
amendment bore a rational relationship
Medical Malpractice.
to the state's interest inreducingthe rate
Statute of limitations in the Medical
oBfeesbme,ok4i1n8g Fi.nStuhpep.st2adte.10D6o4s(SWaDn.toAsrkv.. MaarlaptriaocntailcbeaAscits,a§nd16i-t1d1o4e-s20n1otetdseepqr.i,vheasa
2006).
claimant of a constitutional right to a
Discrimination. redress ofwrongs or ajury trial, nor does
Defendant's arguments regarding a it violate the right to equal protection.
Batson v. Kentuckyviolationwerenotpre- Davis v. Parham, 362 Ark. 352, 208
served for appellate review where defen- S.W3d 162 (2005).
dant failed to offer any additional argu- Where patient alleged that § 16-114-
ment or other proof to rebut the state's 207 was violative of the Fourteenth
andthe trial court's race-neutral explana- Amendment to the United States Consti-
tions and to show that the state's motives tution and this section, but failed to raise
were not genuine, as was required during her strict scrutiny argument before the
the third stage of the Batson process. circuit court, the Arkansas Supreme
Lewis v. State, 84 Ark. App. 327, 139 Court applied a rational basis test and
S.W3d 810 (2004). determined that the statute was ratio-
African-American defendant's Batson nally related to the purposes ofthe legis-
challengefailedwherethe state onlyused lature in enactingthe statute. Whortonv.
five of its six peremptory strikes and, in Dixon, 363 Ark. 330, 214 S.W3d 225
addition, the jury included at least one (2005).
African-American. Ratliff v. State, 359 Taxation.
Ark. 479, 199 S.W.3d 79 (2004). Tobacco product distributors' equal pro-
Police officer engaged in racial profiling tection claims concerning § 26-57-261
prohibited by state statute, the state con- were dismissed where distributors were
stitution, the U.S. Constitution, and the not required to pay more for theirArkan-
city's written policy and the officer also sas sales than would a participating
illegally seized one of the plaintiffs, manufacturer. Grand River Enters. Six
thereby violating U.S. Const., Amend. IV Nations, Ltd. v. Beebe, 418 F. Supp. 2d
andthestateconstitution;thepolicechief, 1082 (WD. Ark. 2006).
who supervised the officer and ran the
police department, was deliberatelyindif- Workers' Compensation Benefits.
ferent to ongoing and systemic racial pro- ArkansasWorkers'Compensation Com-
filing ofwhich he was aware and munici- mission erred in holding that § 11-9-
,
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Art. 2, § 6
522(f)(1) was constitutional where the a greater potential for fraudulent claims
statute created a ceasingpointforperma- being advanced for mental injuries, and
nently totally disabled (PTD) benefits so permitting more extensive benefits for
that older workers who were eligible for mental injuries would act as a disincen-
socialsecurityorretirementbenefitswere tiveforworkerstodevotethemselvesfully
foreclosedfromreceivingPTD benefits for to psychological or psychiatric treatment
waaslegniotirmaattieonwalorbka-srieslaftoerdsuicnjhuray.diTshtienrce- and recovery. Therefore, § ll-9-113(b)(l)
didnotviolateequalprotectionunderthis
Atipopn.. 1O4s7b,o2r4n5e Sv..WB.e3kdae1r8t5 (C2o0r0p6.),. 97 Ark. section. Pat Salmon & Sons, Inc. v. Pate,
Legislature had a rational and legiti- 2009Ark.App. 272,—307 S.W.3d 46 (—2009—),
mate public purpose for distinguishing rehearin—g denied, Ark. App. ,
between mental and physical workers' S.W.3d , 2009 Ark. App. LEXIS 6—81
compensation injuries under § 11-9- —(May 27, 2—009), review denied, —Ark.
113(b)(1), limiting compensation for men- S.W.3d , 2009Ark. LEXIS 635 (Sept.
talinjuriesto26weeks,becausetherewas 24, 2009).
§ 4. Right of assembly and of petition.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR. Validity of Restrictions Imposed andAssemblyunderFirstAmendment. 46
duringNationalPoliticalConventions Im- A.L.R.6th 465.
pinginguponRightstoFreedomofSpeech
CASE NOTES
Analysis wasshownsincethemanufacturerdidnot
Commercial Speech. pay more than participating companies
Loss ofCompetitiveAdvantage. and merely lost its prior competitive ad-
Commercial Speech. vantage.DosSantosv.Beebe,418F. Supp.
2d 1064 (W.D. Ark. 2006).
Whereatobaccoproductsmanufacturer
which did not participate in a settlement Loss ofCompetitiveAdvantage.
between states and tobacco companies al- Tobacco product distributors' free
leged that an amendment to a statute speechclaimsrelatedto § 26-57-261were
implementing the settlement, which pro- dismissedwhere the allegedinfringement
vided that the nonparticipating manufac- was the loss of competitive advantage
turer paid more into escrow and retroac- under the old allocation scheme and such
tively eliminated refunds of the a loss could not be considered an uncon-
manufacturer's prior escrow overpay- stitutional burden on speech, regardless
ments, impermissibly burdened the ofwhether the speech was commercial or
manufacturer'sfreespeechrightsthrough political in nature. Grand River Enters.
economic pressure to participate in the SixNations, Ltd.v. Beebe,418F. Supp. 2d
settlement, no unconstitutional burden 1082 (W.D. Ark. 2006).
—
6. Liberty of the press and of speech Libel.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR. First Amendment protection af- Blogs and Bloggers. 35A.L.R.6th 407.
forded to comic books, comic strips, and Validity ofRestrictions Imposed during
cartoons. 118A.L.R.5th 213. National Political Conventions Impinging
FirstAmendmentProtectionAffordedto upon Rights to Freedom of Speech and
Web Site Operators. 30A.L.R.6th 299. Assembly under First Amendment. 46
FirstAmendmentProtectionAffordedto A.L.R.6th 465.
Art. 2, § 6 CONSTITUTION OFARKANSAS
Restrictive Covenants or Homeowners' bers of Military Subjected to Discharge,
Association Regulations Restricting or Transfer, orDiscipline Because ofSpeech.
ProhibitingFlags, Signage, orthe Like on 40A.L.R. Fed. 2d 229.
Homeowner's Property as Restraint on Application ofFirstAmendment's "Min-
Free Speech. 51A.L.R.6th 533. isterial Exception" or "Ecclesiastical Ex-
Construction and Application ofEstab—- ception" to Federal Civil Rights Claims.
lishment Clause of First Amendment 41 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 445.
U.S. Supreme CourtCases. 15A.L.R. Fed. Ark.L.Rev.TheNewJudicialFederal-
2d 573. ism Takes Root in Arkansas, 58 Ark. L.
First Amendment Protection for Mem- Rev. 883.
CASE NOTES
Analysis Qualified Immunity.
Free Press. Mayor was entitled to summary judg-
Loss ofCompetitiveAdvantage. ment on police chiefs claim under the
Qualified Immunity. Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, § 16-
Retaliation. 123-101 et seq., because the mayor was
Free Press. entitled to qualified immunity; the mayor
There is nothing that proscribes the could nothave reasonablyknownthathis
pressfromreportingeventsthattranspire termination of the police chiefs employ-
in a courtroom; once a public hearinghas ment, whichwas done upon the discovery
been held, what transpired there cannot ofmissing or incomplete police reports 15
be subjecttopriorrestraint. HelenaDaily days after the police chief made a state-
Worldv. Simes,365Ark. 305,229S.W.3d 1 ment at a city council meeting, would
(2006). violate the police chiefs constitutional
Court granted newspaper's petition for right to free speech under this section.
daiswsroiltveofcaenrtiionrjaurincdtiiroenctitnhgattheprjeuvdegnetetdo Smithv. Brt, 363Ark. 126, 211 S.W.3d485
newspaper from reporting testimony (2005).
given in open court in a case involving a Retaliation.
dispute between a mayor and a city coun- Former university employee's free
cil as the restraining order was too broad speech retaliation claim under § 16-123-
and was an unconstitutional prior re- 105 and this section failed because the
sStirmaeisn,to36n5thAerkp.re3s0s5.,H2e2l9enSa.DWa3idly1W(o2r0l0d6)v.. employee's filing of sexual harassment
complaints against co-workers did not
Loss ofCompetitiveAdvantage. constitute protected speech; the employee
Tobacco product distributors' free was merely responding to sexual harass-
speechclaimsrelatedto § 26-57-261were ment allegations made against the em-
dismissedwherethe allegedinfringement ployee by the co-workers, and the em-
was the loss of competitive advantage ployee filed the complaints in an effort to
under the old allocation scheme and such
avoidterminationratherthanasamatter
a loss could not be considered an uncon-
stitutional burden on speech, regardless ofpublic concern. McCullough v. Univ. of
ofwhether the speech was commercial or Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855 (8th Cir.
political in nature. Grand River Enters. 2009).
SixNations,Ltd.v. Beebe, 418F. Supp. 2d Cited: Smith v. Brt, 363 Ark. 126, 211
1082 (WD. Ark. 2006). S.W3d 485 (2005).
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Art. 2, § 7
— — — —
§ 7. Jury trial Right to Waiver Civil cases Ninejurors
agreeing.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR. Validity and application of com- First National Bank of Dewitt v.
puterizedjury selection practice or proce- Cruthis:AnAnalysisoftheRighttoaJury
dure. 110A.L.R.5th 329. TrialinArkansasAftertheMergerofLaw
Ark. L. Rev. Comment, Peremptory and Equity, 60Ark. L. Rev. 563.
Challenge: Striking Down Discrimination
in Arkansas's Jury Selection Process, 59
Ark. L. Rev. 93.
CASE NOTES
Analysis fering legal interpretations ofundisputed
In General. facts. Scamardov. Sparks Reg'l Med. Ctr,
Construction. 375Ark. 300, 289 S.W3d 903 (2008).
Appeal from District Court.
Construction.
Court Rules.
The right to ajury trial set out in Ark.
Equity.
Number ofJurors. Const. Art. 2, § 7 is unaffected by Ark.
Const. Amend. 80, as section 7 does not
TortActions.
Waiver. assure the right to a jury trial in all
possible instances, but rather in those
In General. cases where the right to a jury trial ex-
In a capital murder case, where the isted when the constitution was framed;
state struck two black venirepersons further, the right to ajury trial does not
without questioning them because they applytonewrights createdbythe legisla-
hadpreviouslybeenonahungjuryorhad ture since the adoption of the Arkansas
been on a jury where a defendant was Constitution. FirstNat'lBankofDewittv.
acquitted, those strikes were found to be Cruthis, 360 Ark. 528, 203 S.W3d 88
racially neutral and survived defendant's (2005).
Batson challenge. Stokes v. State, 359 There were no undisputed facts that
Ark. 94, 194 S.W.3d 762 (2004). warranted proceeding to ajury trial; the
Supreme CourtcouldnotgiveArkansas circuit court determined as a matter of
Workers' Compensation Commission pre- law that the city had an affirmative de-
clusive effect that would deprive the em- fense to the employee's whistle-blower
ployee of a full and fair opportunity to claim in that his termination was the
litigate the issue as this section made result ofhis violating departmental rules
clear that the right of a jury trial in all andpolicies.Asthecircuitcourtreasoned,
cases at law was inviolate unless it was the employee should not be allowed to
waived by the litigant; due to the consti- forcethe citytoprovethatmisconductyet
ttuhteiorniaglhtnattourreedroefstshiosfrwirghotn,gsalfoongunwditihn Aargaki.n.73B,a—rroSw.sWv3.dCi—ty(o2f0F1o0)r.tSmith, 2010
Ark. Const, art. 2, § 13, that made it
necessary to amend the constitution be- Appeal from District Court.
fore the legislature could establish work- Because defendant failed to file a certi-
ers' compensation laws, as those laws ef- fied record of the district court proceed-
fectively stripped employees of those ings on his drivingwhile intoxicated trial
rights in claims against their employers. withthecircuitcourtclerkwithin 30 days
Craven v. Fulton Sanitation Serv, 361 ofthe districtcourtjudgment, as required
Ark. 390, 206 S.W3d 842 (2005). byArk. R. Crim. P. 36(b), the circuitcourt
Ark. R. Civ. P. 56 was not unconstitu- had no jurisdiction over his appeal, even
tional as it did not deny the patient her though defendant's right tojury trial was
right to ajury trial where there were no there—by lost. Ro—berson v. State, 2010Ark.
factual disputes; instead, there were dif- 433, S.W3d (2010).
,
Art. 2, § 8 CONSTITUTION OFARKANSAS
Court Rules. not unconstitutionally denied his right to
Trialcourt'sstandardpracticeofrequir- ajurytrial under this section, because no
ing a defendant to request ajury at least factual issues existed as to whether the
48 hours before trial was not in accor- medicalcenterwasentitledtogovernmen-
dance with the Arkansas Constitution or tal and charitable immunity. Anglin v.
the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Proce- Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr., 375Ark. 10, 289
dure; the notice requirement put a defen- S.W.3d 28 (2008).
dantinthepositionofforfeitinghis orher
right to a jury trial due to inaction. Waiver.
Swindlev. State, 373Ark. 519, 2—85 S.W.—3d In a felony non-support case, where
—200 (2008),—rehearing denied, Ark. counsel requested ajury trial at the pre-
S.W.3d 2008Ark. LEXIS 456 (Sept. trial hearing but the case proceeded as a
,
18, 2—008), ce—rt, denied, Swindle v. Arkan- bench trial, the appellate court held that
sas, U.S. 129 S. Ct. 1616, 173 L. Ed. defendant was denied his right to ajury
2d 994 (2009)., trialastherecordwassilentastowhether
defendant had knowingly, intelligently,
Equity. andunderstandinglywaivedhisrightto a
In case involving an approval ofa trust jury trial. Burrell v. State, 90 Ark. App.
accounting, two beneficiarieswere not en- 114, 204 S.W.3d 80 (2005).
titled to a jury trial under this section Dismissal ofdefendant's appeal on the
because the reliefsoughtwas equitablein grounds thathis attorneyfailedto appear
nature. Moreover, the question of an ac- atapretrialhearingwas improper;where
countingcouldnothavebeensubmittedto dismissal ofthe appeal from districtcourt
ajuryasifitwas asuitfortherecoveryof was not authorized by former § 16-96-
money. Inre Estates McKnightv. Bank of 508, the effect of the trial court's action
Am., N.A., 372 Ark. 376, 277 S.W.3d 173 was to deny defendant his right to ajury
(2008). trial without the express waiver thereof
Number ofJurors. required by the Arkansas Constitution.
Denial ofdefendant's motion for a mis- Ayala v. State, 92 Ark. App. 356, 214
trial was appropriate because he invited S.W.3d 282 (2005), rev'd, 365 Ark. 192,
the alleged error. Ifhe had not agreed to 226 S.W.3d 766 (2006).
Dismissal of defendant's appeal of his
start his trial without alternate jurors,
then the circuit court could have seated conviction in the city court was improper
somewhenthetrialbegan; defendanthad as the dismissal would waive defendant's
to have known that his second cousin had right to a jury trial, which he did not
been seated as ajuror and yet he let the waive; defendantneitherpersonallymade
matter go until she was dismissed. Mar- an express declaration in writing or in
shall v. State, 102 Ark. App. 175, 283 open court, nor did counsel make the
waiverinopencourtinthepresenceofthe
S.W.3d 597 (2008).
defendant. Ayala v. State, 365 Ark. 192,
TortActions. 226 S.W.3d 766 (2006).
In a wrongful death suit brought Cit—ed: Crawfo—rd v. Cashion, 2010 Ark.
against a medical center, a husband was 124, S.W.3d (2010).
— — —
§ 8. Criminal charges Self-incrimination Due process
—
Double jeopardy Bail.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR. Application of Apprendi v. New existence of plea bargain or other deals
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 with witness as violating due process. 12
L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000) and Ring v. Arizona, A.L.R.6th 267.
536 U.S. 584, 122 S. Ct. 2428, 153 L. Ed. What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga-
2d 556 (2002) to state death penalty pro- tion" by Police Officer Within Rule of
ceedings. 110A.L.R.5th 1. Miranda v. Arizona Requiring That Sus-
Failure of state prosecutor to disclose pect Be Informed of His or Her Federal
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Art. 2, § 8
Constitutional—Rights Before Custodial FederalConstitutiona—lRightsBeforeCus-
Interrogation At Suspect's or Third todial Interrogation In Jail or Prison.
Party's Residence. 28A.L.R.6th 505. 38A.L.R.6th 97.
What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga- Application ofStigma-Plus Due Process
tion" of Adult by Police Officer Within Claims to Education Context. 41
RuleofMirandav.ArizonaRequiringthat A.L.R.6th 391.
Suspect Be Informed ofFederal Constitu- Propriety ofUsing Otherwise Inadmis-
tiona—l Rights Before Custodial Interroga- sible Statement, Taken in Violation of
tion AtPoliceStationorSheriffsOffice, Miranda Rule, to Imp—each Criminal De-
Where Defendant VoluntarilyAppears or fendant's Credibility State Cases. 42
Appears at Request of Law Enforcement A.L.R.6th 237.
Personnel, or Where Unspecified as to What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga-
Circumstances Upon Which Defendant Is tion" by Police Officer Within Rule of
Present. 29A.L.R.6th 1. Miranda v. Arizona Requiring that Sus-
What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga- pect Be Informed of Federal Constitu-
tion" at Hospital by Police Officer Within tiona—l Rights Before Custodial Interroga-
RuleofMirandav.ArizonaRequiringthat tion Upon Hotel Property. 45A.L.R.6th
Suspect Be Informed of His or Her Fed- 337.
eral Constitutional—Rights Before Custo- SuppressionofStatementsMadeduring
dialInterrogation SuspectHospitalPa- Police InterviewofNon-English-Speaking
tient. 30A.L.R.6th 103. Defendant. 49A.L.R.6th 343.
What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga- Construction and Application of Con-
tion" at Hospital by Police Officer Within sent-Once-Removed Doctrine, Permitting
Rule of Miranda v. Arizona Requiring Warrantless EntryInto ResidencebyLaw
That Suspect Be Informed ofHis Federal Enforcement Officers for Purposes of Ef-
Constitutional—Rights Before Custodial fectuatingArrest or Search Where Confi-
Interrogation Suspect Hospital Visitor, dential Informant or Undercover Officer
Not Patient. 31 A.L.R.6th 465. Enterswith Consentand Observes Crimi-
What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga- nalActivity or Contraband in Plain View.
tion" of Adult by Police Officer Within 50A.L.R.6th 1.
RuleofMirandav.ArizonaRequiringthat What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga-
Suspect Be Informed ofFederal Constitu- tion" Within Rule ofRequiring That Sus-
tional Rights Before Custodial Interroga- pectBe Informed ofHis Federal Constitu-
—
tion AtPoliceStationorSheriffsOffice, tional Righ—ts Before Custodial
WhereDefendantIsEscortedorAccompa- Interrogation Private Security Guards,
niedbyLawEnforcementPersonnel, orIs Detectives, or Police. 51A.L.R.6th 219.
Otherwise at Station or Office Involun- Failure of State Prosecutor to Disclose
tarily. 32A.L.R.6th 1. Exculpatory Phys—ical Evidence as Violat-
What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga- ingDueProcess Weapons. 53A.L.R.6th
tion" by Police Officer Within Rule of 81.
Miranda v. Arizona Requiring that Sus- Failure of State Prosecutor to Disclose
pect Be Informed of His or Her Federal Exculpatory Phys—ical Evidence as Violat-
Constitutional—Rights Before Custodial ing Due Process Personal Items Other
Interrogation At Police Vehicle, Where Than Weapons. 55A.L.R.6th 391.
Defendant Outside, but in Immediate Vi- What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga-
cinity. 34A.L.R.6th 1. tion" by Police Officer Within Rule of
What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga- Miranda v. Arizona Requiring That Sus-
tion" by Police Officer Within Rule of pect Be Informed of His or Her Federal
Miranda v. Arizona Requiring that Sus- Constitutional—Rights Before Custodial
pect Be Informed of His or Her Federal Interrogation At Nonpolice Vehicle for
Constitutional—Rights Before Custodial Traffic Stop, Where Defendant Outside,
Interrogation At Police Vehicle, Where But in Immediate Vicinity of Vehicle, or
Defendant in Moving Vehicle, or Where Where Unspecified as to Whether Inside
UnspecifiedastoWhetherVehicleMoving or Outside of Nonpolice Vehicle. 55
or Stationary. 35A.L.R.6th 127. A.L.R.6th 513.
What Constitutes "Custodial Interroga- Construction andApplicati—on ofConsti-
tion" Within Rule of Miranda v. Arizona tutional Rule of Miranda Supreme
Requiring that Suspect Be Informed of Court Cases. 17A.L.R. Fed. 2d 465.
Art. 2, § 8 CONSTITUTION OFARKANSAS 8
U.Ark.LittleRockL.Rev.Note: Con- New Protections for Arkansas Gays and
stitutional Law-Privacy and Equal Pro- Lesbians, Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600,
tection-Arkansas Joins Other States in a 80 S.W.3d 332 (2002), 25 U. Ark. Little
Revival of State Constitutions as Guard- Rock L. Rev. 681.
ians of Individual Rights, Establishing
CASE NOTES
Analysis mistrial. Because the jury had not been
Bail. swornunderoath, doublejeopardydidnot
—Double Jeopardy. attach under this section. Williams v.
Appeal. State, 371 Ark. 550, 268 S.W3d 868
—
Criminal Insanity. (2007).
—
Fraud. Trial court did not abuse its discretion
—
Multiple Offenses. in finding that, as a result of defense
—Parole or Probation. counsel bringing a live explosive into
— court without permission, there was an
Sex Offender Registry.
overruling necessity for terminating the
Due Process.
— trial and therefore the Double Jeopardy
Attorney Discipline.
— Clause did not preclude the state from
—Child Maltreatment Registry. bringingdefendant to trial a second time.
—Civil Proceedings. There was a concern that members ofthe
—Criminal Proceedings. jury, who had been evacuated from the
Discovery. courthouse, observed police officers in
—
Habeas Corpus. handling the explosive. Koster v. State,
—
New Trial. 374Ark. 74, 286 S.W3d 152 (2008).
—
Parental Rights. Defendant waived his double-jeopardy
—Regulation ofBusiness. defensebyenteringinto aplea agreement
—Sex Offender Registration. that he would become subject to the full
— range of punishment for his original
Taxation.
— charges in the event ofa breach. Green v.
Vagueness.
State, 2009 Ark. 113, 313 S.W.3d 521
Prisoner's Rights.
(2009).
Right to Counsel. Mistrial was notjustifiedwhen defense
Self-incrimination.
— counsel's opening statement purportedly
Abridgement ofRight.
— changedthetheoryofdefenseinamurder
Confessions.
— trialfromselfdefensetoaccident;because
Waiver. thecourtcouldhavetakencorrectivemea-
Bail. sures and proceeded with trial, the mis-
Petitionerwas awarded certiorari relief trialwas unjustified, andthis sectionpre-
cluded any subsequent prosecution.
after a trial court denied petitioner bail
after petitioner was charged with violat- Shelton v. State, 2009 Ark. 388, 326
ing an order of protection because peti- S.W.3d 429 (2009).
tioner was not charged with a capital The Fifth Amendment's and this sec-
offense; the trial court should have set a tion's doublejeopardy clauses did not bar
reasonable bail with whatever terms and defendant's retrial on capital-murder and
restrictions were deemed appropriate. first-degree murder charges because, al-
Hobbs v. Reynolds, 375 Ark. 313, 289 though thejury forewoman announced in
open court that thejuryhad found defen-
S.W.3d 917 (2008).
dant not guilty on those charges, thejury
Double Jeopardy. had deadlocked on a manslaughter
At the beginning of defendant's rape charge, amistrialwas declared, andthere
trial, voir dire was conducted by both were no "findings" or "verdicts"; a trial
parties and a jury was selected but not court'sdeclarationofamistrialbecauseof
sworn; due to a four-month delay in trial a hungjury was not an event that termi-
whiletheparties awaitedtheresultsfrom nated the original jeopardy to which de-
the crime lab, the circuit court ordered a fendantwassubjected, andthemereread-