Rodney Harmon v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Rodney Harmon’s convictions and vacated the court of appeals’ opinion. The court held that the State had no discovery obligation to obtain video footage held by HBO filmmakers who observed the search, upheld the denial of a continuance and exclusion of related testimony, and found harmless error in the nonmodel trafficking instruction. The court also upheld admission of a recorded controlled drug purchase during the penalty phase.

Holdings

1. The State did not violate Arkansas discovery rules because it did not possess the footage, the filmmakers were not law-enforcement officers or state agents, and the State disclosed the filmmakers' presence and available contact information more than a year before trial.
2. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying a further continuance.
3. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding testimony about the filmmakers' presence.
4. The nonmodel instruction was erroneous because the model trafficking instruction accurately stated the law and the trafficking statute did not include the added purpose-to-deliver factors, but the error was harmless because another instruction correctly presented the same factors.
5. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the recording because Harmon's argument consisted only of conclusory assertions and was not supported by developed argument or sufficient legal authority.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to order the State to obtain HBO footage of the search and identify all filmmakers present.
2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to obtain the footage and identify the filmmakers.
3. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding testimony concerning the filmmakers' presence at the search.
4. Whether giving a nonmodel jury instruction on methamphetamine trafficking constituted reversible error.
5. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting, during the penalty phase, a recording of an alleged drug purchase made by a confidential informant who did not testify.

Disposition

affirmed