Justin Howard Petty v. State of Arkansas

2023 Ark. 131

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: September 28, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2023 Ark. 131 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-23-1

Opinion Delivered: September 28, 2023

JUSTIN HOWARD PETTY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 46CR-21-486]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BRENT HALTOM, APPELLEE JUDGE

REMANDED.

SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice

Appellant Justin Petty was convicted of first-degree murder and received a life

sentence with a fifteen-year enhancement for firearm use. The sole issue on appeal revolves

around the alleged error in the circuit court’s denial of his mistrial motion during the guilt

phase of the trial.

Subsequent to the completion of briefing, this court issued an order for a status report

regarding the relevance of defendant’s exhibit 1, a conventionally filed physical disk that was

submitted as part of the record but contained no files. In response, the parties jointly

advocated for remanding the case to the circuit court. We agree. This court has a

responsibility to scrutinize the record for errors in cases resulting in life-imprisonment

sentences. Therefore, we remand the matter to the circuit court to settle the record.

The trial featured the State’s presentation of surveillance footage from various

cameras situated at the scene of the murder, consolidated within State’s exhibit 8. Despite the defense’s intent to admit all five videos contained in State’s exhibit 8, the State opted to

introduce footage of three videos from just two cameras. Following defense counsel’s cross-

examination of a witness, Alexis Forbes, and the presentation of previously unadmitted

footage from a hallway, the defendant asked to provide a physical exhibit containing the

footage the following day. That exhibit, defendant’s exhibit 1, was provided in the form of

a disk that was discovered on appeal to contain no files.

The situation warrants careful consideration, as it is plausible that defendant’s exhibit

1 is a component of State’s exhibit 8. Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No.

4(a) mandates the maintenance of a comprehensive record for all legal proceedings. It

specifically states that the circuit court is responsible for instructing the official court reporter

to create a verbatim record of all proceedings. Additionally, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-

510(a) (Supp. 2021) stipulates the necessity for “a complete record of the proceedings” in

“all cases before a circuit court.” In cases where material information pertinent to either

party is inadvertently omitted from the record, we possess the authority to issue directives

for the correction of such omissions. If deemed necessary, we can also ensure the

certification and transmission of a supplemental record to rectify any gaps in the existing

record. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6(e).

Hence, it is ordered that this case be remanded to the circuit court. The remand

serves the purpose of accurately settling the record, specifically concerning defendant’s

exhibit 1.

BAKER and HUDSON, JJ., concur.

2 KAREN R. BAKER, Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority’s decision to

remand the case to the circuit court to settle the record; however, I write separately to

highlight the unconditional nature of this court’s obligations grounded in Arkansas Supreme

Court Rule 4-3(a). Pursuant to Rule 4-3(a), “[w]hen the sentence is death or life

imprisonment, the Court must review all errors prejudicial to the appellant[.]” (Emphasis

added.) As the majority properly notes, “[t]his court has a responsibility to scrutinize the

record for errors in cases resulting in life-imprisonment sentences.”

Here, after it was discovered that the record was deficient, a majority of this court

inexplicably ordered the parties to “file a status report on the relevance, if any, of the missing

exhibit.” Regardless of its asserted relevance, defendant’s exhibit 1 was submitted as part of

the record in the present case, and in light of our obligation to review the record for

prejudicial error, the record must be settled. The fact that the parties correctly concluded

that the better course of action is to remand the case to settle the record is of no moment,

as the parties do not have the authority to waive or dictate the terms of our compliance

with Rule 4-3(a).

Accordingly, I concur with the majority’s decision to now remand the case to the

circuit court to settle the record because this is consistent with my initial vote as reflected

in this court’s order directing the parties to file a status report.

HUDSON, J., joins.

James & Streit, by: Jonathan R. Streit, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Clayton P. Orr, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.