Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal of Bruce Earl Ward's complaint challenging Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-506(d)(1), which governs competency determinations for individuals sentenced to death. The court held that the statute was facially unconstitutional because it provided no procedure for a condemned inmate to make a threshold showing of incompetency or obtain an evidentiary hearing consistent with Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman. The court reversed and remanded, overruling Singleton v. Endell to the extent it conflicted with this holding.
Holdings
- Ward had standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 16-90-506(d)(1) because his death sentence and execution warrant gave him a personal stake in the controversy.
- Ward's due-process and separation-of-powers arguments were preserved for appellate review, and the circuit court's immunity and exhaustion rulings applied only to separate civil-rights allegations and did not independently dispose of the constitutional claims.
- Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-506(d)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it does not provide a death-row prisoner an opportunity to make a substantial threshold showing of incompetence to trigger a hearing or an evidentiary hearing satisfying the requirements of due process under Ford and Panetti.
Questions Presented
- Whether Ward had standing to challenge the constitutionality of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-506(d)(1) even though the Director had not made a competency determination concerning him.
- Whether Ward's due-process and separation-of-powers arguments were preserved for appellate review despite the circuit court's failure to expressly rule on the constitutional issues and Ward's failure to challenge every stated ground for dismissal.
- Whether Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-506(d)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it does not provide a death-row prisoner an opportunity to make a substantial threshold showing of incompetence or an evidentiary hearing satisfying Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (23)
- Ward v. State, 338 Ark. 619, 1 S.W.3d 1 (1999)(followed)
- Ward v. State, 321 Ark. 659, 906 S.W.2d 685 (1995) (per curiam)(followed)
- Ward v. State, 308 Ark. 415, 827 S.W.2d 110 (1992)(followed)
- Morrison v. Jennings, 328 Ark. 278, 943 S.W.2d 559 (1997)(followed)
- Tauber v. State, 324 Ark. 47, 919 S.W.2d 196 (1996)(followed)
- Garrigus v. State, 321 Ark. 222, 901 S.W.2d 12 (1995)(followed)
- Jackson v. State, 334 Ark. 406, 976 S.W.2d 370 (1998)(distinguished)
- Coleman v. Regions Bank, 364 Ark. 59, 216 S.W.3d 569 (2005)(distinguished)
- Pugh v. State, 351 Ark. 5, 89 S.W.3d 909 (2002)(followed)
- Pearrow v. Feagin, 300 Ark. 274, 778 S.W.2d 941 (1989)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…