Title: Roseby v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Dexter ROSEBY v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-122                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 18, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- challenge to sufficiency of evidence addressed before
     other issues. -- When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of
     the evidence, the appellate court addresses the issue before
     all others.  

2.   Motions -- directed verdict -- specific motion required. -- Rule 33.1 of
     the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a criminal
     defendant to make a specific motion for a directed verdict
     that apprises the trial court of which element of the crime
     the State has failed to prove.

3.   Motions -- directed verdict -- motion lacked specificity -- issue not
     preserved for appeal. -- Where, at the conclusion of the State's
     case, appellant made a directed-verdict motion, stating that
     the State had failed to present direct evidence linking him to
     the crime, but did not mention in his motion that the State
     failed to prove the "premeditated and deliberate" element of
     capital murder, the supreme court concluded that appellant did
     not preserve the issue for appeal.

4.   Attorney & client -- right to counsel of choice not absolute. -- The
     right to counsel of one's choice is not absolute and may not
     be used to frustrate the inherent power of the court to
     command an orderly, efficient, and effective administration of
     justice.

5.   Attorney & client -- change of counsel -- granting of continuance
     discretionary -- factors considered. -- It is within the trial
     court's discretion to grant a continuance so that a criminal
     defendant may obtain a new attorney, and this decision will
     not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion; in making this
     determination, the trial court may consider the following
     factors: (1) the reasons for the change; (2) whether other
     counsel has already been identified; (3) whether the defendant
     has acted diligently in seeking the change; and (4) whether
     the denial is likely to result in any prejudice to defendant.

6.   Attorney & client -- change of counsel -- no abuse of discretion in denial
     of continuance. -- Where the trial court found that appellant's
     attorney was competent and had diligently filed several
     pretrial motions on his behalf, and where appellant's attorney
     had been working for him for approximately eight or nine
     months, yet appellant had waited until the day of the trial to
     ask for a new attorney, the supreme court could not say that
     the trial court had abused its discretion when it denied
     appellant's motion. 

7.   Jury -- Batson challenge -- three-step analysis. -- In considering an
     argument that the State used its peremptory challenges at
     trial to exclude African-Americans from the jury in violation
     of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as
     construed in Batson v. Kentucky,