Case Title: Matthews v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-415

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Nina Sue MATTHEWS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-415                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 21, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- arguments unsupported by citation of authority or
     convincing argument not considered on appeal. -- The supreme court
     does not consider arguments where an appellant offers no
     citation of authority or convincing argument and where it is
     not apparent without further research that the argument is
     well taken.

2.   Evidence -- expert testimony -- when admissible. -- Expert testimony
     is admissible when it will aid the jury in understanding the
     evidence or in determining a fact in issue.

3.   Evidence -- expert testimony -- no abuse of discretion in permitting
     witness to testify to legal standard for criminal insanity. -- Where a
     clinical psychologist called by the State presented testimony
     in rebuttal to the testimony of a psychiatrist and a
     psychologist called by appellant about whether appellant was
     mentally competent at the time of the shooting, the supreme
     court held that it was probative for the expert to relay his
     opinion premised on the proper legal standard for criminal
     insanity to assist the jury in determining a fact in issue,
     which was appellant's ability to conform her conduct; the
     supreme court, noting that the trial court subsequently
     instructed the jury regarding the law on mental disease or
     defect, concluded that the trial court did not abuse its
     discretion in permitting the State's expert witness to testify
     as he did.

4.   Appeal & error -- admissibility of statements -- no objection to one
     statement -- no ruling obtained on objection to other statement -- no
     request made for Denno hearing -- issue not preserved. --  Where
     appellant's counsel did not object to the admissibility of a
     statement that appellant made to a crime-scene specialist, the
     issue was not preserved for appeal; where appellant's counsel
     raised a general objection to statements that appellant made
     to a detective but was remiss in failing to obtain a ruling on
     the objection, and where counsel made no request for a Denno
     hearing even though the prosecutor had suggested that they go
     into chambers, ostensibly for a Denno hearing, the supreme
     court concluded that appellant also failed to preserve for
     review the issue of the admissibility of statements made to
     the detective.


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; John Plegge, Judge;
affirmed.
     Paul Johnson, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  David R. Raupp, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Robert L. Brown, Justice.
     This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for capital
murder for which appellant Nina Sue Matthews received a sentence of
life imprisonment without parole.  She urges two points for
reversal: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State's
rebuttal witness, Dr. Mallory, to testify as to the legal standard
for criminal insanity; and (2) the trial court erred in allowing
Matthews's custodial statements into evidence.  We find no error,
and we affirm.
     The salient facts are garnered from trial testimony.  Two
"911" calls were made on December 25, 1993, in Little Rock
concerning a shooting at the Matthews residence on Shackleford Road
-- one by Nina Sue Matthews herself and one by her daughter
Kimberly Dill.  Officer Marcus Paxton of the Little Rock Police
Department was dispatched to that residence and testified that when
he arrived on the scene, he observed another officer leading
Matthews, who was upset and sobbing, from the home.  Inside the
residence, he found the victim, David Matthews, who was the husband
of Nina Sue Matthews, sitting in a recliner with his legs crossed
and a pistol in his right hand.  He had been shot several times and
was dead.  Officer Paxton approached Nina Sue Matthews who was
sitting in the back seat of a Little Rock police car with the door
open.  He could tell Matthews had been drinking alcohol.  The
police officer asked her if she was present when the shooting took
place, and she responded that she was and stated that it was her
daughter's fault, that the victim had a million dollar life
insurance policy, and that "she wasn't going to say another word."
     Dr. Frank Peretti, a forensic pathologist and medical examiner
with the State Crime Lab, testified that he performed the autopsy
on the victim.  He testified that David Matthews had been shot
three times in the chest, once in the left temple, and three times
in the face with a small caliber gun.  He testified that the
victim's blood-alcohol content was .16 percent.
     The State next called Little Rock Police Detective Rebecca
Junkins as a witness.  Matthews's counsel objected to the
introduction of some of Matthews's statements made to Detective
Junkins.  The prosecuting attorney urged that the statements were
spontaneous and suggested that an in camera hearing be held.  The
trial court responded, "Go ahead," which was a reference to
continuing the trial.  The testimony continued in the presence of
the jury.  No request for a ruling on the objection was made by
Matthews's counsel.  Nor was a request made for a hearing in
chambers for the trial court to determine the voluntariness of the
statements pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-89-107(b)(1) (1987), and
Jackson v. Denno,