Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McClendon v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 4, 2019No. CR-18-329PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJosephine Linker Hart, Justice

I agree with the majority's conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain McClendon's convictions. However, McClendon's right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, requires reversal of the trial court's denial of McClendon's motion for a mistrial.

The decision to grant or deny a motion for mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent a showing of abuse or manifest prejudice to the appellant. E.g. , Johnson v. State , 366 Ark. 8, 13, 233 S.W.3d 123, 127 (2006). A mistrial is a drastic remedy and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tryon v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2007
  2. Armstrong v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006
  3. Maiden v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2014
  4. Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2006

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Eric Reid v. State of ArkansasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2019
  2. Jeremey Lewis v. State of ArkansasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2023
  3. Shaniqua Finley v. State of ArkansasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2019
  4. James McCauley v. State of ArkansasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2023
  5. Thomas Hartley v. State of ArkansasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2022

27 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