Johnson v. State overruled

Overturning a previous ruling and rewriting (clarifying?) Rules 6.1 and 7.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued this per curiam order.

Dismissal does not bar future prosecution

The dismissal of a charge against a person does not bar future prosecution of the same offense, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In reversing an Arkansas Court of Appeals decision, the high court said a Boone County circuit judge was correct to deny Christopher Branning’s motion to dismiss a second-degree stalking charge on double-jeopardy grounds.

Branning was convicted of the charge and several others in 2005 and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The state, which initially decided not to prosecute, was free to bring charges later, the high court said in a unanimous decision.

Branning was arrested in 2003 and charged with harassing communications, terroristic threatening, carrying a weapon and second-degree assault, all misdemeanors.

In 2004, he pleaded guilty in Boone County District Court to carrying a weapon and second-degree assault. The other charges were dismissed.

In 2005, he was charged in circuit court with second-degree stalking, first-degree criminal mischief, criminal trespass and two counts of first-degree terroristic threatening, all felonies, and a misdemeanor violation of a protective order.

A jury later found him guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

In his appeal, Branning argued that the charges that were dismissed in 2003 were used as the basis for the 2005 second-degree stalking charge.

The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed and dismissed the second-degree conviction.

The state appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the high court has ruled previously that the state could refile a charge that had been dismissed earlier.

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed, and also upheld the circuit court’s denial of Branning’s motion to dismiss. He had argued that he did not get a speedy trial.

Link to original story.

Supreme Court finds Private Company not subject to FOIA

ANB has the story.  The following is just an excerpt:

A private company doing business with the state is not subject to being sued to make its records of the deal public under the state Freedom of Information Act, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous decision, the high court overturned a lower court decision ordering Nabholz Construction Co. to release a detailed listing of $2.5 million in overhead expenses it received for construction of a $35 million dormitory at the University of Arkansas.

The full Nabholz Supreme Court decision is here.

Private company exempt from FOI law?

A privately owned company should not have to make its records public, even though it was lead contractor on a high-dollar state project, said Jeffrey Moore, attorney for Nabholz Construction Co, Thursday before the state Supreme Court.

“Up to this point the court has never extended the Freedom of Information Act such that a private industry can be sued directly under the Freedom of Information Act,” Moore argued before the court.

Ron Hope, attorney for Contractors for Public Protection Association, urged the high court to uphold a March ruling by Pulaski County Judge Marion Humphrey that ordered Nabholz to release a detailed listing of $2.5 million in overhead expenses it received for construction of a $35 million dormitory at the University of Arkansas.

Link to original story.

The Supreme Court may be skeptical of Hope’s argument.

Suppression Case upheld by AR Supreme Court

In State of Arkansas v. Moreno, Defendant Moreno could speak Spanish but not read it. At the scene of the arrest, an officer translated an English Miranda warning card to the defendant. At the sheriff’s office in an interrogation room, the officer went over the rights form with Moreno. The officer had an English rights form and Moreno had a Spanish form. Moreno never indicated he didn’t understand and signed the form. Moreno produced at trial a transcript of the conversation with the Officer which had been translated. The trial court found that the officer had failed to give an adequate warning to Moreno.

Trial court suppressed statements made after faulty warning and Supreme Court upheld ruling.

Read whole case here.

Arkansas Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Harrison

The Arkansas Supreme Court will conduct oral argument at the John Paul Hammerschmidt Conference Center-North Arkansas College in Harrison, Arkansas on Thursday, November 1, 2007 beginning at 9:00 a.m. (The Court will go into informal session for a few minutes right at 9:00 to allow for photographs). The public is welcome to attend. The case that will be argued is Christopher Branning v. State of Arkansas.

This will only be the sixth occasion in modern times that the Supreme Court has held court outside of Little Rock.