Opinion ID: 1587827
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Separate Accomplice Instruction

Text: For her final point on appeal, Young argues that the circuit court erred in giving a separate accomplice instruction on the charge of capital murder. Young first contends that she was denied her due process of law, in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 8 of the Arkansas Constitution. Furthermore, she states that it is error in a capital murder case to instruct on an alternative ground for conviction, citing Ward v. State, 293 Ark. 88, 733 S.W.2d 728 (1987). The record reveals that the only objection Young made to the separate accomplice instruction was that it was a redundancy because accomplice liability is accomplished in the very charge of Capital Murder. Young now makes the constitutional argument and the argument based on Ward v. State, supra , for the first time on appeal. As previously noted, this court will not address arguments, even constitutional ones, that are raised for the first time on appeal. See Davis v. State, supra . Furthermore, both of these issues are argued by one sentence each, without further explanation of the merits. This court has repeatedly stated that it does not consider assignments of error that are unsupported by convincing argument or sufficient legal authority. See Ward v. State, 350 Ark. 69, 84 S.W.3d 863 (2002). For these reasons, we decline to address this point.