Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court denied Ricky Lee Scott’s fifth petition for permission to pursue a writ of error coram nobis concerning alleged prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, witness tampering, and fabrication or suppression of evidence. The court held that Scott failed to identify qualifying facts extrinsic to the record, provide sufficient factual support, establish prejudice, or show that the State suppressed specific evidence. The court granted his motion to file his replies and deemed his motion for appointment of counsel moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Scott demonstrated a recognized and sufficiently supported ground for permission to proceed with a fifth petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
- Whether Scott's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, witness tampering, and evidence fabrication or suppression established an error extrinsic to the record and resulting prejudice.
- Whether the court should extend its prior decision in Strawhacker v. State to permit coram nobis relief based on an allegation that a prosecutor retaliated against Scott for refusing sexual advances.
Holdings
- Scott was not entitled to permission to proceed because he failed to allege specific facts demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record and failed to establish a recognized basis for the writ.
- Scott failed to demonstrate prejudice because he did not show that Boeckmann was involved in the witness statements, that the eyewitnesses had been influenced before identifying Scott, or that the result of the trial would have been different.
- Scott failed to establish a Brady violation because he did not identify specific evidence pertaining to Boeckmann that the State suppressed.
- The court declined to extend Strawhacker to Scott's unsupported allegation that his refusal of sexual advances constituted a prosecutorial-misconduct ground for coram nobis relief.
Key quotations
“The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment.” (at 453)
“A writ of error coram nobis is available for addressing certain errors that are found in one of four categories: (1) insanity at the time of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or (4) a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal.” (at 453)
“To establish a Brady violation, the petitioner must satisfy three elements: (1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; (3) prejudice must have ensued.” (at 453)
Factual background
In 1998, a jury convicted Scott of first-degree murder for the shooting death of fifteen-year-old Robert Smith, and eyewitnesses identified Scott as the shooter. Scott alleged that deputy prosecutor Joseph Boeckmann prosecuted him in retaliation for refusing sexual advances and engaged in witness tampering, Brady violations, and evidence fabrication or suppression. He also alleged that evidence concerning a purported rape charge, clothing, footwear, and witness statements supported his claims, but he did not provide specific facts showing that qualifying evidence was hidden from the defense or that Boeckmann influenced the eyewitness identifications.
Procedural history
The Cross County Circuit Court convicted Scott of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment in 1998. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. Scott then filed his fifth application for permission to pursue coram nobis relief, alleging prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, witness tampering, and fabrication or suppression of evidence.