Case Title: Peebles v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-944

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1998-01-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Abram PEEBLES v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-944                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 22, 1998


1.   Attorney & client -- ineffective-assistance claim -- proof required. -- To
     prevail on any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the
     petitioner must first show that counsel's performance was
     deficient; this requires showing that counsel made errors so
     serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel"
     guaranteed the petitioner by the Sixth Amendment; secondly,
     the petitioner must show that the deficient performance
     prejudiced the defense as to deprive the petitioner of a fair
     trial; unless a petitioner makes both showings, it cannot be
     said that the conviction resulted from a breakdown in the
     adversarial process that renders the result unreliable.

2.   Attorney & client -- ineffective-assistance claim -- presumption of
     reasonable assistance. -- When reviewing ineffective-counsel
     claims, a court must indulge in a strong presumption that
     counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable
     assistance; the petitioner must show there is a reasonable
     probability that, but for counsel's errors, the factfinder
     would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt, i.e., the
     decision reached would have been different absent the errors;
     a reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
     undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.

3.   Appeal & error -- denial of postconviction relief -- not reversed unless
     ruling was clearly erroneous. -- The supreme court does not reverse
     a trial court's denial of postconviction relief unless the
     ruling was clearly erroneous.

4.   Evidence -- provisions of Ark. R. Evid. 806. -- Under Rule 806 of the
     Arkansas Rules of Evidence, if a hearsay statement or certain
     statements offered against a party have been admitted in
     evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked,
     and if attacked may be supported, by any evidence that would
     be admissible for those purposes if declarant had testified as
     a witness; evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant
     at any time, inconsistent with his hearsay statement, is not
     subject to any requirement that he may have been afforded an
     opportunity to deny or explain; if the party against whom a
     hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a
     witness, the party is entitled to examine him on the statement
     as if under cross-examination.

5.   Evidence -- impeachment -- fact that child witness's answers at pretrial
     hearing were unsworn did not foreclose Ark. R. Evid. 806 use for
     credibility purposes. -- Where it was clear that the transcript of
     a child witness's contrary statements at a pretrial hearing
     would not be offered as substantive evidence but merely for
     impeachment purposes, testimony under oath was not required;
     the supreme court concluded that the fact that the child's
     answers at the pretrial hearing were not under oath did not
     foreclose their use under Ark. R. Evid. 806 for credibility
     purposes.

6.   Evidence -- impeachment -- mother's testimony admissible under Ark. R.
     Evid. 806 even if she was not present when child witness's inconsistent
     statements were made. -- The supreme court, rejecting the State's
     contention that the child witness's mother could not testify
     about what the boy said at the pretrial hearing because she
     was not present at the time when the child answered the trial
     court's questions, noted that the argument ignored Ark. R.
     Evid. 806, which allows for the admission of relevant
     inconsistent statements of the declarant; impeachment could
     take place irrespective of whether the mother was present when
     the inconsistent statements were made because the mother was
     merely the mouthpiece or conduit for the child's statements,
     and it was the declarant's statements that were being
     impeached rather than the mother's.

7.   Appeal & error -- appellant did not receive fair trial where defense
     counsel did not offer child witness's inconsistent statements into
     evidence. -- Where, though the information would have been
     invaluable to the jury, defense counsel made no attempt to
     offer the child witness's inconsistent statements into
     evidence, and the jury thus was not informed that the three-
     year-old boy, who was the critical witness against appellant,
     had recanted his story at a pretrial hearing, the supreme
     court concluded that appellant did not receive a fair trial.

8.   Attorney & client -- defense counsel's performance deficient -- reasonable
     probability that absent information would have affected outcome -- reversed
     and remanded. -- The supreme court held that the ineffective-
     assistance test of Strickland v. Washington,