Simpson v. State

916 S.W.2d 119, 323 Ark. 582, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 140
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided March 4, 1996·No. CR 95-967·Published

Opinion

David Newbern, Justice.

Barry Lynn Simpson pleaded guilty to the charge of first-degree murder in connection with the death of his father. In the sentencing phase of his trial, the State presented the testimony of members of the family concerning the effect the crime had upon them and their children. Mr. Simpson argues it was reversible error to have received the testimony because he was not notified that the witnesses would testify. We affirm the conviction because the issue presented on appeal was not presented to the Trial Court.

At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Simpson’s only argument was that the witnesses should not have been allowed to testify because their testimony was cumulative to evidence contained in the presentencing report. The point about lack of notice was not presented and is entirely different from the argument made to the Trial Court. If the ground of an objection is changed on appeal, the argument is considered to have been waived. Whitney v. Holland Retirement Ctr., 323 Ark. 16, 912 S.W.2d 427 (1996); Stewart v. State, 320 Ark. 75, 894 S.W.2d 930 (1995).

Affirmed.

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

Simpson v. State, 916 S.W.2d 119, 323 Ark. 582, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 140 (Ark. 1996).

916 S.W.2d 119 (Simpson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whitney v. Holland Retirement Center, Inc.
912 S.W.2d 427 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1996)
Stewart v. State
894 S.W.2d 930 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1995)