Paul Smith v. State of Arkansas, 347 Ark. 277

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that Paul Smith failed to preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his kidnapping convictions because he did not renew his directed-verdict motion after the State presented rebuttal evidence. The court also dismissed the State’s cross-appeal concerning a peremptory challenge as untimely. The court conducted the required review under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h) and affirmed the direct appeal.

Holdings

1. A criminal defendant must renew a directed-verdict motion at the close of the State's rebuttal case, even when the rebuttal evidence concerns issues other than the elements of the charged offense. Failure to do so waives appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence.
2. The State must file a notice of cross-appeal within thirty days after entry of the trial court's final order; an untimely cross-appeal cannot be considered.
3. In a case involving a sentence of life imprisonment, the Arkansas Supreme Court must review the record for prejudicial error, and no prejudicial error was found here.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Smith preserved a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge by failing to renew his directed-verdict motion after the State presented rebuttal evidence.
2. Whether the State's cross-appeal challenging denial of its tenth peremptory challenge was timely when filed more than thirty days after entry of judgment.
3. Whether the Rule 4-3(h) review disclosed prejudicial error in the life-imprisonment case.

Disposition

other