Opinion highlights for the week of August 23, 2026

 

Last week, the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions.  The Arkansas Supreme Court did not issue a syllabus.  Three of those Court of Appeals decisions are noted here.

The Court of Appeals remanded Johnson v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 369, to settle and supplement the record.  The peremptory strikes at trial all occurred off the record.  But to review the submitted no-merits brief for Anders compliance, the appellate court "must be provided with the entire record of the circuit court proceedings, including a transcript of the jury selection process." Id. at 2.  Without a transcript, the Court of Appeals could not be assured that there were no objections or adverse rulings during this portion of the trial.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that a verbatim record is ideal, but not required in every instance - the court would evaluate whether the supplemental record enabled full and complete appellate review.  "Accordingly, in the absence of a verbatim record of the peremptory strikes, the record should be reconstructed." Id.

Hughes v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 371, involved a claim that a juror should have been removed.  At trial, Hughes' attorney did not object when given the opportunity by the trial court.  On appeal, Hughes argued that the this issue could be addressed under the third Wicks exception to the rule requiring a contemporaneous objection at trial.

The third Wicks exception allows consideration of an unpreserved argument when the trial court had a duty to intervene, even without a party's objection, to address flagrant and highly prejudicial errors.  The Court of Appeals noted that "Arkansas appellate courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to invoke Wicks in cases involving alleged juror bias or misconduct when no contemporaneous objection was made." Hughes, 2026 Ark. App. 371, at 3.  Because his argument was not preserved at trial and Wicks did not apply, the Court of Appeals did not consider Hughes' arguments about the juror.

Finally, Floyd v. Bowlin-Lemon, 2026 Ark. App. 373, arose out of a boundary dispute.  At trial, appellants offered to rebuild a certain fence; after confirming that offer, the trial court ordered that the fence be rebuilt.  Appellants promptly challenged that on appeal.  The Court of Appeals found that appellants waived this argument at trial, so that it was not preserved for review: "It is well settled that a party may not complain on appeal of an action that he induced, consented to, or acquiesced in below." Id. at 9.

Enjoy your week - thank you for reading.

Settlement immediately prior to oral argument - one panel's reaction

 

You are in the courtroom to present oral argument.  Thirty minutes prior to the start of the court's session, you learn that the parties have settled their dispute.  What would you do?  How would you address this development to the appellate court?

That happened this morning before a panel of the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  The case is Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. v. State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin, Attorney General, CV-24-592.

When the case was called, Meta's attorney informed the panel that thirty minutes prior to argument he was notified that the parties had settled.  He offered to continue with or forego argument, as the court wished.  The panel asked the State for its reaction, but that attorney did not come to the podium and I could not make out her response.

The panel's response was, essentially: "It's your case.  How would you like to proceed?"  Meta's attorney opted to present argument.  Interestingly, the panel did not ask a single question of either attorney.

I've not seen this happen before, although I'm sure this was not the first time a case settled immediately prior to argument or submission for decision.  It might be interesting to see how this case unfolds.

Have a good day.

Opinion highlights for the week of August 16, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down eleven opinions yesterday.  The Arkansas Supreme Court did not post a syllabus this morning.  We'll ease back into a routine by looking at a couple of those Court of Appeals opinions.

In King v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 358, King appealed convictions for drug and paraphernalia possession.  She objected to admission of certified copies of two prior convictions - apparently on relevance grounds - but the trial court ruled that she opened the door for the documents' admission.

On appeal, King argued that the convictions were improperly admitted for the purpose of proving her guilt.  The Court of Appeals determined that King's argument was not preserved for appeal.  "Parties cannot change the grounds for an objection on appeal but are bound by the scope and nature of their objections as presented at trial." Id. at 4.  King did not raise her appellate arguments below, much less obtain a ruling on them, so they were not preserved for review.

Moore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 363, is a child custody case.  Moore appealed an award of child custody to the mother, not him.  One of his arguments was that "reunification with a fit parent" is not a permanency goal under the Juvenile Code, but pursuing that goal caused the trial court to improperly focus on reunification with the child's mother.

The Court of Appeals found that this argument was not preserved for appeal.  Moore specifically appealed the November 10, 2025 order determining custody, but relevant findings were made in an earlier order.  Thus, "Moore failed to preserve that argument for appellate review because he did not challenge the prior order below or designate the relevant review hearing in his notice of appeal." Id. at 11.  The Court of Appeals cited Velazquez v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 168, at 5, in support of that statement.

Thank you for reading.