The Arkansas Appellate Update for September is available here.
OF NOTE:
Seely v. State [Confrontation Clause; hearsay testimony] The trial court erred when it permitted a social worker to testify about out-of-court “testimonial” statements made by a child victim to the social worker during a sexual-abuse evaluation because such hearsay testimony violated the Confrontation Clauses of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. The appeals court explained that “when the context of the questioning is for the purpose of establishing past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution, then the questioning is inherently testimonial.” (Langston, J.; CACR 06-1318; 9-26-07; Robbins).
Bob Cole Bonds, Inc., v. State [bonds] Pursuant to Rule 9.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, an appearance bond guarantees all subsequent appearances of the defendant on the same charge or on other charges arising out of the same conduct before any court, including appearances relating to appeals and upon remand. Thus, the trial court erred when if found that a written confirmation was needed from the bonding company for a defendant’s bond to continue while he was pursuing an appeal following the entry of a conditional guilty plea. (Sutterfield, D.; CACR 06-1371; 08-29-07; Bird).
Tommy L. Gullahorn v. Gail A. Gullahorn: [UCCJEA] The trial court determined that Arkansas had continuing jurisdiction over this child-custody case because the appellee mother remained in Arkansas even though the appellant father and child had moved to Texas. In the majority opinion, the Court of Appeals said the trial court should have made a factual determination of the propriety of the Arkansas court’s continued jurisdiction. The trial court has the discretion to exercise, or to decline to exercise, jurisdiction over the case, and it was remanded for findings regarding the extent or significance of the appellant’s and the child’s connections with Arkansas.(Pierce, M.; No. CA06-1258; 8-29-07; Baker)
