Price v. State, 347 Ark. 708

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Leslie Price’s convictions for second-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that substantial evidence supported the murder conviction and rejected claims that trial counsel had a conflict of interest or provided ineffective assistance, including by withdrawing a motion to sever the charges and advising Price regarding his testimony. The excerpt also addresses challenges concerning the racial composition of the jury venire, but ends before that discussion is completed.

Holdings

1. Substantial evidence supported Price's second-degree-murder conviction because the jury could infer that he knowingly caused Sykes's death from testimony that he pointed a loaded gun at Sykes's head and fired it.
2. Price was not entitled to a new trial because he failed to show that counsel actively represented conflicting interests, and, in any event, Price knowingly waived any conflict arising from counsel's status as a political candidate and prosecutor-elect.
3. Counsel was not ineffective for withdrawing the motion to sever the murder and felon-firearm charges because the decision was a strategic choice made after discussing the advantages and disadvantages with Price.
4. Counsel was not ineffective for Price's decision to testify because the decision whether to testify belongs to the defendant, while counsel may only advise the defendant.
5. Price failed to establish a due-process violation or ineffective assistance because he presented no statistical or other evidence showing systematic exclusion of African Americans from the venire.

Questions Presented

1. Whether substantial evidence supported Price's conviction for second-degree murder, including proof that he knowingly caused Sykes's death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
2. Whether trial counsel's status as a prosecutor-elect created an actual conflict of interest requiring a new trial.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for withdrawing or failing to pursue severance of the second-degree-murder and felon-firearm charges.
4. Whether counsel was ineffective for advising or allowing Price to testify at trial.
5. Whether the racial composition of the venire violated Price's due-process rights or established systematic exclusion of African Americans.
6. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue the venire-composition challenge before voir dire.

Disposition

affirmed