Legal Opinion

Fairchild v. Norris

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 31, 1994No. 93-975Published

1ConcurrenceRobert L. Brown, Justice

I concur with the majority opinion but write to emphasize that the appellant, Barry Lee Fairchild, is not mentally retarded. The United States District Court so found after a full hearing, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Fairchild v. Lockhart, 744 F.Supp. 1429 (1989), aff’d 900 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 497 U.S. 1052 (1990). The public policy of this State which is embodied in Act 420 of 1993 clearly prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded. But because Fairchild has been found not to be retarded, that public policy is not at issue.

The bulk of the…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Messenger v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Fleming v. ZantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
  3. Southern Railway Co. v. CliftSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Fairchild v. LockhartDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1989
  5. Barry Lee Fairchild v. A.L. Lockhart, Director, Department of Correction, State of ArkansasCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1990

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API