Mark A. Watts v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 102

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: February 12, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Reason: I attest to the Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 102 accuracy and integrity of this document ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2021-06-30 12:41:14 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION III 9.7.5 No. CR-19-634

Opinion Delivered February 12, 2020 MARK A. WATTS

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE YELL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SOUTHERN V. DISTRICT [NO. 75SCR-17-65] STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE HONORABLE JERRY RAMEY, JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

Mark Watts argues that substantial evidence does not support his convictions for

second-degree murder because the State failed to independently corroborate his out-of-

court confession. He also challenges the circuit court’s decision to allow the out-of-court

statement into evidence without some redactions. Watts’s addendum, however, lacks the

necessary information for us to decide the merits of his appeal at this time.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires an addendum to contain all

documents in the record that are “essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction,

to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” The rule specifically requires

an appellant to include in the addendum any exhibits “concerning the order, judgment or

ruling challenged on appeal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2019). Watts’s statement was digitally recorded on a DVD and accepted as evidence during

the trial (as State’s exhibit No. 49). At some point, transcripts of the DVD’s audio were

distributed to the jury. This DVD “confession” video was also played for the jury. Watts

objected during a portion of the video. At that point the video was paused, and the jury

went into recess. Watts argued to the court that certain statements not yet played on the

DVD regarding a forged check would be unduly prejudicial to him if the jury was allowed

to hear them. Watts then proffered a slightly edited version of the transcript of the DVD.

He also asked that the court gather the transcripts that the State had already given to the

jury, which included the information about the check forgery. Before the jury returned to

the box, the circuit court granted Watts’s request and ordered the bailiff to collect and

remove the State’s transcripts from the courtroom. But the court rejected Watts’s proffer

of an edited transcript of the DVD and denied his request to redact the DVD so that the

forgery issue would not be played to the jury. Watts claims that the court abused its

discretion when it denied his oral motions to exclude evidence about the forged check and

when it denied his motions for a directed verdict.

We cannot reach the merits of Watts’s appeal because he omitted the following items

from the addendum: (1) a physical copy of the DVD “confession” that was played to the

jury (State’s exhibit No. 49) and (2) his proposed redacted version of the transcript of the

DVD (defendant’s proffered exhibit No. 1). These two items are essential for us to

understand and decide this appeal as it has been presented to us. See Caldwell v. State, 2018

Ark. App. 393, 557 S.W.3d 268 (addendum copy of DVD essential to decide appeal).

2 We therefore order Watts to file a supplemental addendum within seven calendar

days of this opinion’s date. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4). Watts should also take this

opportunity to ensure that nothing else that is pertinent to this appeal was inadvertently

omitted from the addendum.

Supplemental addendum ordered.

GLADWIN and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.

Jeremy D. Wann, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.