Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Henington v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 26, 2012No. CR 11-523Published

1ConcurrencePaul E. Danielson, Justice

I agree that the circuit court should be affirmed; however, because I reach my conclusion on the first point differently, I concur.

It is my opinion that Bennett indeed should have filed a motion requesting an in camera hearing pursuant to Arkansas’s rape-shield statute. That being said, under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), a claimant must show that their defense was prejudiced so as to deprive them of a fair trial. Henington failed to do so here.

The burden is entirely on the petitioner in a Rule 37.1 proceeding to provide facts that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Bell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API