Justin Howard Petty v. State of Arkansas

2024 Ark. 5, 681 S.W.3d 517

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: January 25, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. 5 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-23-1

Opinion Delivered: January 25, 2024

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

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BRENT HALTOM, APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice

Justin Petty appeals his first-degree murder conviction, resulting in a life-

imprisonment sentence plus an additional fifteen years. He asserts the trial court abused its

discretion when it rejected his initial and renewed mistrial motions. We hold that the trial

court did not abuse its discretion. The conviction is affirmed.

I. Facts

On August 30, 2021, Justin Petty was charged with the first-degree murder of Billy

Eddings, which was later amended on September 15, 2021, to include a firearms

enhancement and an additional charge for possession of firearms by certain persons. In a

pretrial hearing held on June 27, 2022, the court ordered that, before introducing any

testimony or presenting evidence related to prior bad acts under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b), the

parties must first approach the bench and discuss the subject matter with the court. Additionally, the parties were ordered to prepare their witnesses to avoid mentioning

previous history or prior bad acts.

Alexis Forbes, Eddings’s girlfriend and roommate, along with her two children,

witnessed the murder. During Forbes’s testimony, the State aimed to establish the reason

for Petty’s visit to Eddings’s residence on the day of the murder. Forbes stated that Petty

sought Eddings’s help to recover his car, which was sold while Petty was in jail. This

prompted an objection from Petty’s attorney. In the subsequent bench conference, the

prosecutor apologized for Forbes’s statement, mentioning prior warnings about volunteering

such information. Petty contended that the statement violated the trial court’s pretrial order

and requested a mistrial. The prosecutor explained she had instructed Forbes not to discuss

prior criminal activity and that Forbes did not intend to violate the court’s order. The trial

court asked Petty’s attorney if he had evidence that the prosecutor knew Forbes would

mention Petty’s earlier jail time. He had none, leading the court to rule that the violation

was minor since jail, in this context, did not imply a conviction. The court cautioned

Forbes and instructed the jury to disregard her statement––which it agreed to do.

The following day, Petty renewed his request for a mistrial, asserting that Forbes had

also mentioned Petty’s recent incarceration in a police interview that took place after the

murder. In response, the prosecutor explained that, adhering to the court’s directive, she

had discussed the issue with Forbes, instructing her not to discuss anything before September

29, 2020, including Petty’s prior legal issues. She clarified that the State had not probed

into any previous wrongful acts, as Forbes was merely explaining why Petty had visited

Eddings’s house on September 29. Additionally, the prosecutor noted that the witness

2 misspoke following the Court’s curative instruction. The court questioned if each juror

would ignore it, and the jury collectively agreed to disregard Forbes’s statement.

The trial court ruled that the witness had been cautioned against mentioning prior

bad acts in line with its order. Furthermore, the court considered the likelihood of prejudice

to be minimal, categorizing the violation as de minimis since only the term “jail” was

referenced, without implying a conviction or imprisonment. In rejecting the renewed

motion, the trial court determined that Petty’s right to a fair trial remained unaffected and

offered to provide any additional curative instructions requested by the parties. Petty opted

not to seek any further curative instruction.

The jury found Petty guilty of first-degree murder and the firearms enhancement,

resulting in a life sentence plus fifteen years. In his appeal, Petty contends that the trial court

erred in denying his mistrial request.

II. Analysis

Petty’s sole point on appeal is that the trial court should have granted him a mistrial

based on the mentioning of his previous jail confinement.

A trial court has wide discretion in deciding whether to grant a mistrial, and this

court does not reverse that decision unless there is an abuse of that discretion or manifest

prejudice. McClendon v. State, 2019 Ark. 88, at 7, 570 S.W.3d. 450, 454. A trial court

abuses its discretion when it acts improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.

Bragg v. State, 2023 Ark. 66, at 7, 663 S.W.3d 375, 380–81. A mistrial is a drastic remedy

and should be declared only when there is an error so prejudicial that justice cannot be

served by continuing the trial and when it cannot be cured by an instruction to the jury.

3 E.g., Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25, 42, 263 S.W.3d 475, 488 (2007); Maiden v. State, 2014

Ark. 294, 438 S.W.3d 263. In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by

denying a mistrial motion, this court looks to several factors, including “whether the

prosecutor deliberately induced a prejudicial response and whether an admonition to the

jury could have cured any resulting prejudice.” Armstrong v. State, 366 Ark. 105, 113, 233

S.W.3d 627, 634 (2006).

In this instance, we agree with the trial court’s rationale when it considered two

crucial factors in evaluating the need for a mistrial: the potential harm arising from the

witness’s statement and the extent of the prosecutor’s involvement in eliciting the prohibited

statement from the witness. Through discussions with the parties encompassing both the

original and renewed motions presented by Petty, the trial court determined that,

concerning the first factor, the mention of “jail” carried minimal prejudicial impact, given

the absence of an implied conviction or prior bad act. Regarding the second factor, it

concluded that the State did not intentionally prompt testimony involving a prior bad act.

Using its reasoning, the trial court did not exceed its broad discretion in denying a mistrial.

Further, the court instructed the jury to disregard Forbes’s statement regarding Petty’s jail

time, clarifying that Forbes had misspoken.

We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying Petty’s initial

and renewed mistrial motions. Therefore, we affirm his conviction.

III. Rule 4-3(a) Review

4 Petty received a sentence of life imprisonment, so the record has been reviewed for

all errors prejudicial to him, as required by Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(a). No

reversible error was found.

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

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.