Conte v. State
This text of 2014 Ark. 381 (Conte v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2014 Ark. 381
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-13-721
RICHARD RALPH CONTE Opinion Delivered September 18, 2014 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-11-1028]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHARLES E. APPELLEE CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE
REMANDED TO SETTLE AND SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; REBRIEFING ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
On January 22, 2013, appellant, Richard Ralph Conte, was convicted of two counts
of capital murder as well as firearm enhancements and sentenced to two life sentences. On
appeal, Conte presents the following points (1) the circuit court erred in denying Conte’s
motion to dismiss when it found that the State had a “satisfactory reason” for the nine-year
delay before filing charges; (2) the circuit court erred in not granting Conte’s motion for
directed verdict; (3) the circuit court’s grant of the State’s motion in limine was a violation
of Conte’s right to present a “complete defense” under both federal and state constitutional
guarantees of due process, confrontation, and compulsory process; (4) the circuit court abused
its discretion in finding that a kidnapping committed by Conte was relevant under Rule
404(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence; and (5) the circuit court abused its discretion when
it overruled numerous objections, including objections that the introduction of the evidence Cite as 2014 Ark. 381
was more prejudicial than probative.
We do not reach the merits of Conte’s arguments, however, because his brief does not
comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(2014). Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) of the
Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas provides that the addendum shall contain true and
legible copies of the non-transcript documents in the record on appeal that are essential for
this court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on
appeal, including exhibits such as CDs and DVDs. In his first point on appeal, Conte
contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. At the pretrial hearing
regarding his motion to dismiss, Conte introduced a June 26, 2002, recorded statement of
Conte in DVD format in support of his motion. The State also introduced the same recorded
statement on DVD in its case-in-chief and played the DVD for the jury. However, Conte’s
addendum does not include the DVD. Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) requires that the addendum
contain the DVDs if they are essential to our understanding of the case. The DVD is essential
to the understanding of this case and to this court’s ability to make a decision on the merits.
Further, in the absence of a proper waiver, Administrative Order No. 4(a) imposes a
duty on the circuit court to require that a verbatim record be made of all proceedings
pertaining to any contested matter before the court or the jury. Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order
No. 4(a) (2013). Here, there is no evidence of a waiver. Therefore, we remand this case to
the circuit court to settle the record by requiring that a verbatim transcription be made of any
audio recording that was played at trial. The record on appeal must be supplemented with
the transcript of the audio material within thirty days of this opinion’s date. Conte must then
2 Cite as 2014 Ark. 381
include, in his substituted brief, an abstract of the transcribed audio recordings.
Before filing a substituted brief, we strongly encourage Conte to review our rules to
ensure that no additional deficiencies are present. After the record is settled and the
supplemental record has been filed in this court, Conte will have fifteen days to file a
substituted brief. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). The State may revise or substitute its brief
within fifteen days of the filing of Conte’s substituted brief, or it may rely on its previously
filed brief.
Remanded to settle and supplement the record; rebriefing ordered.
Benca & Benca, by: Patrick J. Benca, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 Ark. 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conte-v-state-ark-2014.