Opinion highlights for the week of February 8, 2026

 

This was a busy week at 625 Marshall Street.  The Arkansas Supreme Court issued one opinion on Wednesday, five others on Thursday's docket, and a seventh opinion on Thursday not appearing on the docket.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals issued twenty opinions on Thursday.  We'll note a couple of those latter opinions here.

Jackson argued that an Arkansas Code section and a local ordinance were unconstitutional in Jackson v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 91.  Together, the Code section and ordinance imposed a "pay for stay" system for persons held in the municipal jail.  These costs were imposed in a Sentencing Order; Jackson moved for post-trial relief from these costs; and in an Amended Sentencing Order, the trial court omitted the "pay for stay" costs.

The Court of Appeals found that Jackson's constitutional challenge on appeal was moot.  Because the Amended Sentencing Order dropped the costs, any decision by the court on appeal would have no practical legal effect upon Jackson.  He argued that the exception for matters capable of repetition and evading review applied.  Jackson did not explain how future imposition of these costs would evade review, so the exception was not applied.

Thompson v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 96, discusses the specificity required to preserve a sufficiency argument for appeal.  " A motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.  Without a circuit court's ruling on a specific motion, there is nothing for this court to review." Id. at 7 (footnotes omitted).  In this case, "[a] motion merely stating that the evidence is insufficient does not preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific deficiency, such as insufficient proof on the elements of the offense." Id. at 7-8 (footnote omitted).  Thus, the trial-level argument that the State didn't meet its burden of proof on Thompson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt did not preserve an argument as to a specific element of the crime.

Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of February 1, 2026

 

Twenty opinions appear on the Arkansas Court of Appeals' February 4, 2026, docket; two opinions and several per curiam orders appear on the Arkansas Supreme Court's docket for the following day.  We'll note three opinions and one per curiam order in this post.

The Arkansas Supreme Court settled on a standard of review for a first-of-its-kind appeal in Merrell v. State, 2026 Ark. 15.  This case involves an extended-juvenile-jurisdiction ("EJJ") offender; the trial court determined that Merrell deserved sentencing as an adult, and imposed a life sentence.  Merrell appealed.

Noting that "this is the first appeal from the imposition of an adult sentence on an EJJ offender" addressing the merits, the court had to "first determine the proper standard of review...." Id. at 16.  Arkansas Code imposes a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof on the State to prove at trial that an EJJ defendant's adult sentence was proper; in other appeals involving this burden of proof, the court "applied the clearly-erroneous standard of review." Id.  "Appeals from an EJJ designation are also reviewed under the clear error standard." Id.  The court determined to apply that same standard of review here: "we will not reverse the circuit court's order imposing an adult sentence on Merrell unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence." Id.

An unfortunate use of artificial intelligence in a brief is the subject of a per curiam order issued in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward, 2026 Ark. 17.  On December 11, 2025, the court ordered an attorney to respond to concerns about citations in a brief that could not be located.  To her great credit, the attorney admitted error and took other steps, including self-reporting to the Office of Professional Conduct.  The court noted her response and imposed a reprimand.  This order is required reading if you make use of AI in your pleadings.

Turning to the Court of Appeals, in McBride v. McBride, 2026 Ark. App. 58, the court reminded attorneys about the requirements for a brief's Statement of the Case.

The “Statement of the Case” in an appellant’s brief is required by Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)6) to “identify and discuss all material factual and procedural information” essential to understand and decide the issues on appeal. Here, appellant’s “Statement of the Case” is a mere half page; it contains procedural dates but is woefully inadequate regarding the parties’ testimony and other material evidence. Appellee’s brief supplements the facts somewhat. In this instance, we will not require appellant to rebrief her appeal. We caution all attorneys, however, to be mindful of and compliant with the entirety of Rule 4-2 regarding the contents of electronic briefs.

McBride, 2026 Ark. App. 58, at 1 n.1.

Long v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 62, explores the trial-level detail required to preserve an argument for appeal.  "An appellant must raise an issue in the circuit court and support it with sufficient argument and legal authority, if there is any, to preserve it for appeal." Id. at 3.  When he argued separation of powers at trial, Long "did not cite any provision of the Arkansas Constitution, any standard of constitutional review, or any case law or secondary authority to support his argument." Id. at 4.  Because Long did not provide the trial court with a developed argument, the court did not address it on appeal.

Thank you for reading.

 

Proposed amendments to three rules of appellate procedure

 A per curiam opinion of the Arkansas Supreme Court, delivered January 29, 2026, notes proposed amendments to three of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure - Civil.  A copy of the per curiam opinion can be found at this link: https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/524121/1/document.do

The first proposed change involves Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(f).  The proposal eliminates the requirement that notices of appeal or cross-appeal be served "by any form of mail which requires a signed receipt."  The requirement is no longer necessary in the age of electronic filing.

The second proposed change relates to the first.  If adopted, Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4(a) will require that a notice of cross appeal will be required ten days after the notice of appeal is filed, not ten days after receipt.

The final proposed change is similar to the second and also relates to the first.  The proposed new Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 6 will require an appellee to file a designation of other parts of the record to be included on appeal within ten days after the notice of appeal is filed, not ten days after receipt.

Comments on these proposals are due on or before April 1, 2026.