Thursday, May 7, 2026

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. 

No comments:

Post a Comment