Ferguson v. State

26 S.W.3d 787, 342 Ark. 273, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 464
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided October 5, 2000·No. CR 99-999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellee, State of Arkansas, filed the instant motion urging this court to reconsider our order granting appellant’s motion for oral argument. In support of its position, the State contends that we granted appellant’s request without the benefit of the State’s response and prior to the time that such response was due. Further, the State claims that Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 5-1 (a) (2000), prohibits oral argument in this case. Rule 5-1 (a) provides, in part, that “[a]ny party may request oral argument by filing, contemporaneously with that party’s hriej, a letter, separate from the brief, stating the request with a copy to all parties.” (Emphasis added.) The State’s interpretation of the rule is that a party’s request must accompany their initial appellate brief.

In response, appellant notes that the language of Rule 5-1(a) does not include such a limitation nor does this construction make sense. For example, an appellee may raise an argument in its reply brief that would influence an appellant’s determination of whether an oral argument would “significantly aid the decision-making process.” See Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 5-1 (a)(3). We agree. Here, appellant timely filed his request for oral argument contemporaneously with his reply brief.1 Accordingly, we deny the State’s motion to reconsider our order granting oral argument.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ferguson v. State, 26 S.W.3d 787, 342 Ark. 273, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 464 (Ark. 2000).

26 S.W.3d 787 (Ferguson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elizabeth Goode v. Jaya Nair
2025 Ark. App. 414 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2025)
Magness v. State
2015 Ark. 185 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2015)
Arnold v. State
2011 Ark. 395 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2011)