{ "id": 1875361, "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. Scotty SCOTT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Scott", "decision_date": "1986-06-09", "docket_number": "CR 84-198", "first_page": "234", "last_page": "236", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "289 Ark. 234" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "710 S.W.2d 212" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "261 Ark. 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1678907 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/261/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 Ark. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1675869 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/262/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 Ark. 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1740716 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/282/0571-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 298, "char_count": 3952, "ocr_confidence": 0.916, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2413540347135885e-07, "percentile": 0.6079672984795639 }, "sha256": "73acad52aa74e829576f3424b86394f5898e51572bb162c84b2f08ad3ed1a045", "simhash": "1:cefecc1e6404d370", "word_count": 669 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:34.211418+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Special Justice Kelvin Wyrick concurs.", "Holt, C.J., and Purtle, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "STATE of Arkansas v. Scotty SCOTT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Herbert C. Rule III, Special Justice.\nThis case comes before us on appeal by the State of Arkansas under Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure 36.10(c) to review the decision of the trial court granting a new trial to Scotty Scott (\u201cScott\u201d) based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm the grant of a new trial.\nScott was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated robbery in the death of Betty Thornton on November 6, 1981. While that judgment was on appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, counsel for Scott discovered new evidence in the form of a confession by Henry Lucas (\u201cLucas\u201d). The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to consider Scott\u2019s petition for a writ of error coram nobis.\nOn remand, the trial court reviewed the transcripts of Scott\u2019s two prior trials, heard the testimony of numerous witnesses, including Lucas, and concluded, under our holding in Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984), that, despite the presumed validity of the jury verdict against Scott and the heavy burden borne by him, the writ ought to be granted to prevent a miscarriage of justice.\nThe standard of review by this Court is whether the lower court abused its discretion in granting the writ and a new trial. The State argues that the trial judge applied an erroneous standard of proof to the evidence presented. From a review of the entire record, we believe that the trial court properly applied the legal standards announced in Penn v. State, supra, and did not abuse its discretion. Newberry v. State, 262 Ark. 334, 557 S.W.2d 864 (1977).\nUnder our decisions, the writ of error coram nobis is a closely guarded remedy. In Penn v. State, supra, we said:\nBy granting the right to petition the trial court, we do not in any way enlarge the other restrictions attendant to granting the writ. The trial court has the discretion to grant or deny it. The petitioner has a heavy burden to meet, especially in a case like this which must be approached with some skepticism for confessions by others are not uncommon. A written confession by another would not, alone, be grounds for relief. . . .\nWe emphasize that we do not open the door to other petitions beyond those that would qualify under the facts in this case, especially the fact that it is presently between trial and appeal and can easily provide for an early hearing before the court that just heard the case. The petition was timely filed and if the confession is true, an injustice would obviously result if it were not granted.\nThe trial judge weighed the credibility of the witnesses and noted the internal conflicts in Lucas\u2019 confession as well as the inconsistency between his testimony at the hearing and his earlier statements to the police. Lucas\u2019 confession is obviously material to the guilt or innocence of Scott. It is the trial court\u2019s proper function to review newly discovered evidence, evaluate it and, where its exclusion would cause a grave miscarriage of justice, grant a new trial.\nScott argues on cross appeal that the State wrongly withheld Lucas\u2019 confession and, for that reason, we should grant sanctions against the State. Lucas\u2019 confession, even with its inconsistencies, was clearly exculpatory of Scott, and the arguments for withholding it are not impressive. Although we do not believe sanctions are in order, we would caution prosecutors to comply fully with the letter and spirit of Rule 17, Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure in the future.\nFinally, we deny Scott\u2019s' request for affirmance for the State\u2019s failure to abstract the record properly. Brace v. Busboon, 261 Ark. 556, 549 S.W.2d 802 (1977).\nAffirmed.\nSpecial Justice Kelvin Wyrick concurs.\nHolt, C.J., and Purtle, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "Herbert C. Rule III, Special Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.", "John Wesley Hall, Jr., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. Scotty SCOTT\nCR 84-198\n710 S.W.2d 212\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 9, 1986\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.\nJohn Wesley Hall, Jr., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0234-01", "first_page_order": 260, "last_page_order": 262 }