Cite as 2025 Ark. 127 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-610
Opinion Delivered: September 11, 2025
TARUS WALKER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 46CR-23-316]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CARLTON D. APPELLEE JONES, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
A Miller County jury convicted Tarus Walker of capital murder, and the circuit
court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, Walker contends the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial after a detective testified—during the
State’s questioning—that a warrant had been issued for Walker’s arrest on charges of capital
murder and felon in possession. He further contends that this reference to his status as a
felon caused incurable prejudice, despite the curative instruction given to the jury. We
affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
On Christmas Day, 2022, Walker shot and killed Aaron Bruce, the boyfriend of the
mother of Walker’s children. That day, Bruce went to the apartment of his cousin, Patrick
Ross, after encountering Walker outside. Bruce was dating Charnetta Grayton, the mother
of Walker’s children, and the two men had an ongoing conflict following an alleged domestic disturbance the previous day. When Bruce and Ross went outside, they
confronted Walker, who was armed with an AK-style rifle. Ross testified that he pleaded
with Walker not to shoot, but Walker stated that Bruce “was going to die today” and then
shot him multiple times, killing him. Other witnesses corroborated either hearing or seeing
the gunfire and Walker leaving the scene. Evidence also showed that shortly before the
shooting, Walker had called a relative of Grayton’s seeking Bruce’s address.
Walker does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his capital-
murder conviction; he argues only that a mistrial was warranted. Accordingly, the relevant
facts are from Walker’s trial. At trial, Detective Dakota Easley, who obtained Walker’s arrest
warrant, was questioned by the State about his role in the investigation:
PROSECUTOR: Now at some point in your investigation did you believe or come to believe that Mr. Walker had committed an offense?
DETECTIVE EASLEY: Yes, ma’am.
PROSECUTOR: When an investigation leads to an individual and you develop or believe that individual has committed an offense, what do you do?
DETECTIVE EASLEY: We type out a probable cause affidavit to get a warrant for his arrest.
PROSECUTOR: And just so there’s no misunderstanding, a probable cause affidavit, and please if I get this wrong correct me, is saying that we believe that this individual has committed an offense and we would like the court to issue a warrant?
PROSECUTOR: And is that what was done in this particular case?
2 PROSECUTOR: And was a warrant for Mr. Walker issued?
PROSECUTOR: And what was the offense for which the warrant was issued?
DETECTIVE EASLEY: Capital murder and felon in possession of firearm by certain person.
Defense counsel immediately approached the bench and moved for a mistrial.
Because it was near the lunch break, the court excused the jury and advised counsel that it
wished to research the issue before ruling. After the recess, the court heard arguments from
both the State and the defense, then recessed again to conduct additional research, noting
that it thought this was a “close call” and that it wanted to “get this right.”
Ultimately, the court denied Walker’s motion, concluding that any prejudice could
be cured by a proper instruction. Counsel and the court agreed on the language, and upon
the jury’s return, the court instructed:
You are here today to hear the case of State of Arkansas versus Tarus Walker for the offense of capital murder. Any testimony you may have heard regarding any offense or warrant other than capital murder shall not be considered by you in deliberations in this matter.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Walker guilty of committing the offense
of capital murder. He was then sentenced by the circuit court to life imprisonment. Walker
appeals, asking this court to reverse his conviction and remand the case to Miller County
for a new trial on the charge of capital murder.
II. Discussion
Walker’s sole argument on appeal is that the circuit court abused its discretion in
denying his mistrial motion after Detective Easley testified that a warrant had been issued
3 for Walker’s arrest on charges of capital murder and felon in possession. He contends that
this reference to his status as a felon caused manifest prejudice and that the court’s curative
instruction was inadequate to remedy it. He is mistaken.
Mistrials are not to be granted lightly.1 A mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy,
appropriate only when an error is so prejudicial that it cannot be cured by an admonition
or instruction—in other words, when justice cannot be served by continuing the trial. 2 The
decision to deny a mistrial lies within the discretion of the circuit court, and we will not
reverse absent an abuse of that discretion.3 Generally an abuse occurs when the circuit court
acts improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.4 In assessing whether an
abuse occurred in this context, the critical factors we consider are whether the prosecutor
deliberately provoked the prejudicial response and whether an admonition or instruction
could have cured the resulting prejudice.5
In this case, the relevant factors all support the conclusion that the circuit court acted
within its discretion in denying Walker’s mistrial motion. First, the record shows that the
1 Meacham v. State, 2025 Ark. 27, at 12, 707 S.W.3d 473, 481 (citing Barefield v. State, 2024 Ark. 141, at 11, 696 S.W.3d 822, 830). 2 Smith v. State, 2024 Ark. 1, at 8–9, 680 S.W.3d 711, 717 (citing Thompson v. State, 2019 Ark. 290, 586 S.W.3d 163). 3 Smith, 2024 Ark. 1, at 8 (citing Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 432, 385 S.W.3d 157). 4 Meacham, 2025 Ark. 27, at 6 (citing Threadgill v. State, 347 Ark. 986, 993, 69 S.W.3d 423, 428 (2002)). 5 McDaniel v. State, 2019 Ark. 56, at 3, 567 S.W.3d 847, 848 (citing Armstrong v. State, 366 Ark. 105, 113, 233 S.W.3d 627, 634 (2006)).
4 prosecutor did not deliberately provoke Detective Easley’s reference to Walker’s status as a
felon. Second, the stray remark did not create prejudice so severe that it could not be cured
by an instruction. Third, the circuit court reached its ruling only after hearing arguments
from counsel and conducting independent research. Because Walker concedes the first and
third points, our analysis focuses on the second.
Although Detective Easley’s improper testimony created some prejudice, such
prejudice is inevitable whenever a jury hears of a defendant’s prior conviction. This is so
whether the conviction comes in under a proper exception or, as here, slips in through a
witness’s inadvertence. That prejudice, however, does not automatically require a mistrial.
We have long held that a single, inadvertent reference to a prior conviction or incarceration
is ordinarily curable by an instruction.6 By contrast, we have reversed only when the
testimony involved highly inflammatory allegations of other serious crimes—such as the
witness’s statement in Moore v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2025 Ark. 127 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-610
Opinion Delivered: September 11, 2025
TARUS WALKER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 46CR-23-316]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CARLTON D. APPELLEE JONES, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
A Miller County jury convicted Tarus Walker of capital murder, and the circuit
court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, Walker contends the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial after a detective testified—during the
State’s questioning—that a warrant had been issued for Walker’s arrest on charges of capital
murder and felon in possession. He further contends that this reference to his status as a
felon caused incurable prejudice, despite the curative instruction given to the jury. We
affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
On Christmas Day, 2022, Walker shot and killed Aaron Bruce, the boyfriend of the
mother of Walker’s children. That day, Bruce went to the apartment of his cousin, Patrick
Ross, after encountering Walker outside. Bruce was dating Charnetta Grayton, the mother
of Walker’s children, and the two men had an ongoing conflict following an alleged domestic disturbance the previous day. When Bruce and Ross went outside, they
confronted Walker, who was armed with an AK-style rifle. Ross testified that he pleaded
with Walker not to shoot, but Walker stated that Bruce “was going to die today” and then
shot him multiple times, killing him. Other witnesses corroborated either hearing or seeing
the gunfire and Walker leaving the scene. Evidence also showed that shortly before the
shooting, Walker had called a relative of Grayton’s seeking Bruce’s address.
Walker does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his capital-
murder conviction; he argues only that a mistrial was warranted. Accordingly, the relevant
facts are from Walker’s trial. At trial, Detective Dakota Easley, who obtained Walker’s arrest
warrant, was questioned by the State about his role in the investigation:
PROSECUTOR: Now at some point in your investigation did you believe or come to believe that Mr. Walker had committed an offense?
DETECTIVE EASLEY: Yes, ma’am.
PROSECUTOR: When an investigation leads to an individual and you develop or believe that individual has committed an offense, what do you do?
DETECTIVE EASLEY: We type out a probable cause affidavit to get a warrant for his arrest.
PROSECUTOR: And just so there’s no misunderstanding, a probable cause affidavit, and please if I get this wrong correct me, is saying that we believe that this individual has committed an offense and we would like the court to issue a warrant?
PROSECUTOR: And is that what was done in this particular case?
2 PROSECUTOR: And was a warrant for Mr. Walker issued?
PROSECUTOR: And what was the offense for which the warrant was issued?
DETECTIVE EASLEY: Capital murder and felon in possession of firearm by certain person.
Defense counsel immediately approached the bench and moved for a mistrial.
Because it was near the lunch break, the court excused the jury and advised counsel that it
wished to research the issue before ruling. After the recess, the court heard arguments from
both the State and the defense, then recessed again to conduct additional research, noting
that it thought this was a “close call” and that it wanted to “get this right.”
Ultimately, the court denied Walker’s motion, concluding that any prejudice could
be cured by a proper instruction. Counsel and the court agreed on the language, and upon
the jury’s return, the court instructed:
You are here today to hear the case of State of Arkansas versus Tarus Walker for the offense of capital murder. Any testimony you may have heard regarding any offense or warrant other than capital murder shall not be considered by you in deliberations in this matter.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Walker guilty of committing the offense
of capital murder. He was then sentenced by the circuit court to life imprisonment. Walker
appeals, asking this court to reverse his conviction and remand the case to Miller County
for a new trial on the charge of capital murder.
II. Discussion
Walker’s sole argument on appeal is that the circuit court abused its discretion in
denying his mistrial motion after Detective Easley testified that a warrant had been issued
3 for Walker’s arrest on charges of capital murder and felon in possession. He contends that
this reference to his status as a felon caused manifest prejudice and that the court’s curative
instruction was inadequate to remedy it. He is mistaken.
Mistrials are not to be granted lightly.1 A mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy,
appropriate only when an error is so prejudicial that it cannot be cured by an admonition
or instruction—in other words, when justice cannot be served by continuing the trial. 2 The
decision to deny a mistrial lies within the discretion of the circuit court, and we will not
reverse absent an abuse of that discretion.3 Generally an abuse occurs when the circuit court
acts improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.4 In assessing whether an
abuse occurred in this context, the critical factors we consider are whether the prosecutor
deliberately provoked the prejudicial response and whether an admonition or instruction
could have cured the resulting prejudice.5
In this case, the relevant factors all support the conclusion that the circuit court acted
within its discretion in denying Walker’s mistrial motion. First, the record shows that the
1 Meacham v. State, 2025 Ark. 27, at 12, 707 S.W.3d 473, 481 (citing Barefield v. State, 2024 Ark. 141, at 11, 696 S.W.3d 822, 830). 2 Smith v. State, 2024 Ark. 1, at 8–9, 680 S.W.3d 711, 717 (citing Thompson v. State, 2019 Ark. 290, 586 S.W.3d 163). 3 Smith, 2024 Ark. 1, at 8 (citing Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 432, 385 S.W.3d 157). 4 Meacham, 2025 Ark. 27, at 6 (citing Threadgill v. State, 347 Ark. 986, 993, 69 S.W.3d 423, 428 (2002)). 5 McDaniel v. State, 2019 Ark. 56, at 3, 567 S.W.3d 847, 848 (citing Armstrong v. State, 366 Ark. 105, 113, 233 S.W.3d 627, 634 (2006)).
4 prosecutor did not deliberately provoke Detective Easley’s reference to Walker’s status as a
felon. Second, the stray remark did not create prejudice so severe that it could not be cured
by an instruction. Third, the circuit court reached its ruling only after hearing arguments
from counsel and conducting independent research. Because Walker concedes the first and
third points, our analysis focuses on the second.
Although Detective Easley’s improper testimony created some prejudice, such
prejudice is inevitable whenever a jury hears of a defendant’s prior conviction. This is so
whether the conviction comes in under a proper exception or, as here, slips in through a
witness’s inadvertence. That prejudice, however, does not automatically require a mistrial.
We have long held that a single, inadvertent reference to a prior conviction or incarceration
is ordinarily curable by an instruction.6 By contrast, we have reversed only when the
testimony involved highly inflammatory allegations of other serious crimes—such as the
witness’s statement in Moore v. State7 that the defendant admitted to another murder, or the
repeated and detailed testimony in Green v. State8, linking the defendant to threats and
suspicious deaths. Detective Easley’s isolated and inadvertent reference falls far short of those
circumstances. Coupled with the circuit court’s prompt curative instruction and deliberate
consideration of the issue, the remark did not create the kind of manifest prejudice that
would justify the extreme remedy of a mistrial.
6 Kimble v. State, 331 Ark. 155, 959 S.W.2d 43 (1998); Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 432, 385 S.W.3d 157. 7 323 Ark. 529, 915 S.W.2d 284 (1996). 8 365 Ark. 478, 231 S.W.3d 638 (2006).
5 In sum, the circuit court exercised sound discretion in denying Walker’s mistrial
motion. The circuit court’s denial is affirmed and, in turn, Walker’s conviction and
sentence.
III. Rule 4-3(a) Requirement
Because Walker received a sentence of life imprisonment, 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 Law Firm, by: William O. “Bill” James, Jr., and Drew Curtis, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Dalton Cook, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.