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.
No comments:
Post a Comment