Title: Henderson Brown v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Henderson BROWN v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 79-5                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 20, 1997


1.   Criminal procedure -- writ of error coram nobis -- when
     circuit court can entertain petition for writ. -- The circuit
     court can entertain a writ of error coram nobis after a
     judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after the supreme
     court grants permission. 

2.   Criminal procedure -- writ of error coram nobis narrow remedy
     -- when appropriate. -- A writ of error coram nobis is an
     exceedingly narrow remedy, appropriate only when an issue was
     not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial
     because it was somehow hidden or unknown and would have
     prevented the rendition of the judgment had it been known to
     the trial court; the writ is allowed only under compelling
     circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the
     most fundamental nature; a presumption of regularity attaches
     to the criminal conviction being challenged and the petition
     must be brought in a timely manner; newly discovered evidence
     in itself is not a basis for relief under coram nobis; a 
     claim of newly discovered evidence must be addressed to the
     trial court in a motion for new trial made within the time in
     which a notice of appeal must be filed. 


3.   Criminal procedure -- writ of error coram nobis -- situations
     in which writ has been allowed. -- A writ of error coram nobis
     is available only where there is an error of fact extrinsic to
     the record, such as insanity at the time of trial or a coerced
     guilty plea or material evidence withheld by the prosecutor,
     that might have resulted in a different verdict; the writ has
     also been used in cases in which a third party confessed to
     the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. 

4.   Criminal procedure -- writ of error coram nobis -- Larimore
     case did not broaden remedy for advancing allegation that
     third party had confessed to crime of which petitioner was
     convicted. -- Appellant's argument that jurisdiction should be
     reinvested in the trial court to consider an error coram nobis
     petition because another person confessed to the crime for
     which he was convicted was based on a misunderstanding of
     Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997);
     Larimore did not broaden the remedy for advancing an
     allegation that a third party had confessed to the crime of
     which the petitioner was convicted; such an allegation must be
     raised before affirmance of the judgment.  

5.   Criminal procedure -- circumstances exist in which petition to
     reinvest trial court with jurisdiction can be considered
     timely even after affirmance of judgment -- fact that another
     person has confessed to crime not grounds for such relief. --
     While there are circumstances in which a petition to reinvest
     the trial court with jurisdiction to hear a petition for writ
     of error coram nobis can be considered timely if filed after
     affirmance of a judgment, such as prosecutorial misconduct in
     concealing exculpatory evidence from the defense, the
     questions of fact which invariably accompany an allegation of
     a third-party confession demand prompt scrutiny; the mere fact
     that another person has confessed to the crime is not grounds
     for such relief.

6.   Criminal procedure -- writ of error coram nobis -- claim of
     third-party confession must be raised before affirmance --
     such claims limited to time frame in which it most likely that
     the trial court can determine with certainty whether the writ
     should issue. -- Confessions by a third-party are not uncommon
     and must be approached with some skepticism; the trial court
     must carefully scrutinize the complete circumstances
     surrounding the confession and all the available evidence;
     assessing the merits of the third-party confession requires
     that all of the evidence be available and unimpaired by the
     passage of time so that the trial court's examination can be
     exhaustive and decisive; the supreme court's requirement that
     such a claim be raised before affirmance serves to limit such
     claims to the time frame in which it is most likely that the
     trial court can determine with certainty whether the writ
     should issue. 

7.   Criminal procedure -- assertions of third-party confession
     after judgment -- addressed by executive branch in clemency
     proceeding. -- Assertions of a third-party confession after a
     judgment is affirmed may be addressed to the executive branch
     in a clemency proceeding.  

8.   Criminal procedure -- petition based on third-party confession
     limited to time before judgment affirmed -- holding clearly
     mandated by Penn v. State -- petition for writ of error coram
     nobis denied. -- The limitation that a petition based on a
     third-party confession should be limited to the time before a
     judgment is affirmed while other grounds are permitted to be
     raised after affirmance, is one clearly mandated by the
     holding in Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571,