Opinion highlights for the week of May 3, 2026

 

On May 6, 2026, the Court of Appeals announced fifteen decisions.  One day later, the Arkansas Supreme Court announced two decisions.  We'll note two of those Court of Appeals decisions.

In Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Rawls, 2026 Ark. App. 284, ADHS appealed a trial court order remanding a case back to an office of ADHS for a hearing and the presentation of evidence.  The Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.

"A circuit court’s order of remand to an administrative agency for further proceedings is not a final, appealable order... if it directs the agency to complete a step that is a predicate to the circuit court’s ultimate decision." Id. at 6 (citations omitted).  A remand order might be final if it involves a ruling on the merits, but that was not the case here.  The trial court's order did not decide the parties' rights - it contemplated further action.

In McChristian v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 288, McChristian argued for reversal based on an evidentiary issue, but he requested a mistrial at trial - so the Court of Appeals applied the demanding standard of review for mistrial arguments.  The court found that the denial of the mistrial motion was not an abuse of discretion.

McChristian also argued that testimony of his bad act was incredulous, because he was incarcerated at the time he was alleged to have acted.  The Court of Appeals decided that this argument was not preserved.

On appeal, McChristian asserts that he was in prison during much of the time [the victim] testified that he sexually abused her. However, during the pretrial argument on the admissibility of [her] testimony, McChristian simply informed the trial court that the assaults could not have occurred because he “was not in Little Rock or North Little Rock at the time of the assaults”; he never informed the trial court that he was incarcerated during the times [she] alleged she was assaulted by him. Parties are bound by the scope and nature of the objections and arguments presented at trial.

Id. at 5.  The Court of Appeals determined that this argument was not preserved for review.

Thank you for reading. 

Opinion highlights for the week of April 26, 2026

 

By my count, the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down nineteen decisions on Wednesday, April 29, 2026; the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down five the next day.  We'll note a couple of those Supreme Court decisions here, although there are other candidates among the Court of Appeals' decisions.

Norris v. Independence County, 2026 Ark. 91, made the news.  In 2025, the Arkansas General Assembly adopted Act 975, which attempted to place original jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to legislation in the Court of Appeals.  In Norris, the trial court dismissed a constitutional challenge to an Arkansas Code provision based on Act 975.  Norris appealed that dismissal, arguing that Act 975 itself is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court agreed with Norris.  It found that Ark. Const. amend. 80, section 5, excluded original jurisdiction when it expressly granted appellate jurisdiction - alone - to the Court of Appeals.  Similarly, section 6(A) of that amendment granted original jurisdiction to circuit courts.  Act 975 could not vary those constitutional provisions by removing original jurisdiction from the circuit courts and conferring it on the Court of Appeals.

Happily, the Court of Appeals can now return to being a court of (only) appellate jurisdiction.

State v. Ramirez, 2026 Ark. 92, included a discussion about the State's ability to appeal under Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 3.  An earlier prosecution against Ramirez was nolle prossed on the condition that he successfully enlist in the Marines.  That did not happen, and after Ramirez was involved in another shooting a few months later, the State attempted to reinstate the original prosecution.  The trial court granted Ramirez's motion to dismiss, and the State appealed.

The majority noted the rule's language authorizing the State to appeal when necessary to maintain "the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law."  This language permits an appeal when the appellate holding would establish important precedent or when the case involves a legal issue with widespread ramifications.

The majority concluded that this appeal met those standards: "It presents a novel question about what law governs an agreement to nolle pros pending charges and the circumstances under which the State may continue to pursue charges." Ramirez, 2026 Ark. 92, at 4.  This issue was likely to arise again.

Consequently, we conclude that this appeal has widespread ramifications, that our review is necessary to maintain uniformity, and that this is precisely the kind of appeal that Rule 3 gives us the flexibility to hear. We grant the State’s appeal.

Id.  The majority proceeded to the merits.

Thank you for reading.

A request for additional funds to pay appointed attorneys

 

The 95th Arkansas General Assembly is nearing completion of its 2026 fiscal session.  One of the matters under consideration is contained in an April 1, 2026, letter from the Arkansas Court of Appeals requesting $30,000 in additional funds "to supplement its current $360,000 legal-counsel appropriation."

These funds are "used to award modest attorney's fees to attorneys appointed to represent indigent appellants in direct criminal appeals...."  The Court of Appeals noted a "substantial increase" in the number of fee awards this fiscal year.

Thus far in fiscal year 2026, the court of appeals has awarded attorney's fees 132 times totaling $289,109.75.  By comparison, the court had awarded fees 96 times totaling $225,054.71 on April 1, 2025.

The Court of Appeals anticipates that its criminal caseload will remain "steady and heavy."  These additional funds are requested to ensure fee payments through the current fiscal year; the next fiscal year starts on July 1, 2026.

Those numbers are revealing, in terms of fee payments for these appointments.  There was an average fee payment of $2,344.32 in fiscal year 2025, falling to an average fee payment of $2,190.23 in fiscal year 2026. The cap currently appears to be $2,500.00.

This request was approved by the legislature's Joint Budget Committee this morning, without comment or dissent.  I am not certain if any additional approval is needed, but I do not think so.

If you would like to read the letter, it is the second page of this document: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FAssembly%2FMeeting+Attachments%2F005%2F27876%2FB.+vta.pdf