Howard v. State

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Timothy Lamont Howard’s convictions for two counts of capital murder and one count of attempted capital murder, along with his sentences. The court rejected challenges involving sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial comments concerning the right not to testify, delayed disclosure of exculpatory information, hearsay, suppression, closing argument, and admission of handcuffs. The document also notes a dissenting opinion on denial of rehearing dated June 27, 2002.

Holdings

1. The evidence was substantial and sufficient to support Howard's convictions for two counts of capital murder and attempted capital murder.
2. The prosecutor's comments did not warrant a mistrial or reversal because the first comment was treated as a hearsay objection made before Howard's opportunity to testify had ended, and the penalty-phase comment referred to the testimony of defense witnesses rather than Howard's failure to testify.
3. The delayed disclosure did not constitute a discovery violation requiring dismissal or reversal because the State disclosed the information seven months before trial, giving Howard time to investigate and use it.
4. The hearsay claim was not preserved because Howard made only a general objection; alternatively, the testimony was admissible to explain the witness's subsequent action in contacting police.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony that Shannon Day believed she might be pregnant by Howard because evidence tending to show motive was admissible.
6. The prosecutor's statement that Shannon saw Trevor being strangled before her death was a permissible inference from the evidence and did not constitute reversible error.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting handcuffs purchased by the State as relevant demonstrative evidence, even though they were not the handcuffs used on the victim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether substantial evidence supported Howard's convictions for two counts of capital murder and attempted capital murder.
2. Whether the prosecutor improperly commented on Howard's decision not to testify.
3. Whether delayed disclosure of exculpatory information required dismissal, reversal, or other relief.
4. Whether the trial court improperly restricted Howard from presenting the manner in which discovery had been disclosed.
5. Whether testimony that a witness was advised to contact police was inadmissible hearsay.
6. Whether testimony concerning Shannon Day's possible pregnancy by Howard was improperly admitted as motive evidence.
7. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument during the penalty phase required reversal or other relief.
8. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting handcuffs purchased by the State as demonstrative or relevant evidence.

Disposition

affirmed