Title: Noel v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Riley Dobi NOEL v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-117                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 15, 1998


1.   Venue -- change-of-venue motion -- denial -- standard of review. -- The
     standard of review for denial of a motion for change of venue
     is whether there was an abuse of discretion by the trial
     court.

2.   Venue -- change-of-venue motion -- affidavits deficient. -- With respect
     to motions for change of venue, affidavits that cite little or
     nothing beyond an affiant's own convictions that a fair trial
     is not possible are insufficient; thus, while the two
     affidavits submitted to the trial court in support of a
     change-of-venue motion stated the conclusion that a fair trial
     could not be had in the county in question, the supreme court
     held that the affidavits were deficient.

3.   Venue -- change-of-venue motion -- denial not reversed if impartial jury
     selected -- jurors pledged to decide case on evidence. -- A denial of
     a change of venue motion will not be reversed if an
     examination of the jury selection shows that an impartial jury
     was selected and that each juror stated he or she could give
     the defendant a fair trial and follow the instructions of the
     court; all of the jurors in this case pledged that they could
     decide the case based solely on the evidence.

4.   Appeal & error -- argument not addressed for first time on appeal. --
     Where an appellant has failed to raise an argument to the
     trial court, the supreme court will not address it for the
     first time on appeal.

5.   Venue -- change-of-venue motion -- no abuse of discretion in denial. --
     The supreme court concluded that there was no abuse of
     discretion by the trial court in its ruling denying
     appellant's change-of-venue motion.

6.   Appeal & error -- cumulative error -- preservation of objection. -- To
     preserve a cumulative-error objection for appeal, defense
     counsel must not only object to each instance of error but
     also clearly present the cumulative-error point to the trial
     court and obtain a ruling.

7.   Appeal & error -- cumulative error -- when reversal based on appropriate.
     -- A reversal of a conviction based on cumulative error is
     only appropriate in rare and egregious cases.

8.   Appeal & error -- cumulative error -- objection sustained -- no request to
     admonish jury -- no abuse of discretion by trial court. -- Where, in
     each of the five instances of cumulative error complained of,
     appellant did not enter a proper objection, and where there
     was only one objection made that conceivably might have
     qualified as improper character evidence, but, in that
     instance, the trial court sustained defense counsel's
     objection, and appellant made no request that the jury be
     admonished, the supreme court could not say that this
     circumstance, standing alone, constituted reversible error or
     that the conduct of the prosecutor in toto was so egregious as
     to deny appellant a fair trial; there was no abuse of
     discretion by the trial court on this point.

9.   Trial -- mistrial -- extreme remedy. -- A mistrial is an extreme
     remedy  that should only be used when the error is beyond
     repair by any curative measure. 

10.  Trial -- closing arguments -- trial court's discretion to control counsel.
     -- The trial court is given broad discretion to control
     counsel in closing arguments, and the appellate court does not
     interfere with that discretion absent a manifest abuse of it;
     closing remarks that require reversal are rare and require an
     appeal to the jurors' passions; furthermore, the trial court
     is in the best position to evaluate the potential for
     prejudice based on the prosecutor's remarks.

11.  Trial -- closing arguments -- any prejudice from prosecutor's allusion to
     absent alibi testimony could have been cured by admonishment. -- Where
     the actions of defense counsel and appellant himself put
     appellant's credibility in issue, it was a fair inference to
     be argued to the jury that the failure of appellant to call
     any alibi witness to the stand undermined his credibility; any
     prejudice resulting from the prosecutor's allusion to absent
     testimony could have been easily cured by an admonishment,
     which defense counsel did not request.

12.  Trial -- closing arguments -- when party may respond with improper remarks.
     -- When one party uses improper closing remarks, the other
     party may respond with what would ordinarily be improper
     remarks.

13.  Appeal & error -- appellant cannot complain after obtaining relief
     requested. -- An appellant cannot complain on appeal when he
     obtained the relief requested at trial.

14.  Trial -- closing arguments -- failure to object to substance or
     effectiveness of admonishments -- trial court's rulings upheld. -- Where
     three incidents of alleged prejudicial prosecutorial comments
     could all have been cured by an admonishment to the jury, if,
     in fact, they were inappropriate in any respect; where the
     jury was admonished in two instances, and an admonishment was
     not requested in the third case; and where appellant did not
     object to the substance or effectiveness of the admonishments
     given, the supreme court affirmed the trial court's ruling in
     each respect.

15.  Criminal law -- victim-impact evidence -- relevant to decision regarding
     appropriate punishment. -- In the wake of the decision by the
     United States Supreme Court in Payne v. Tennessee,