Opinion ID: 6109767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure of the Circuit Court to Draw the Jury's Attention to the Proper Definition of Person.

Text: For his fourth point, Smith argues that the circuit court failed to bring to the jury's attention that a person could not be an unborn child as it applies to the aggravating circumstances listed in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-604 . Under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Crim. 10(b)(ii), this court must consider whether the circuit court failed in its obligation to bring to the jury's attention a matter essential to its consideration of the death penalty. See also Wicks v. State , 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980). This court has recognized that an error in the completion of the penalty-phase verdict forms concerning mitigating circumstances can fall within the Wicks exception for matters essential to consideration of the death penalty. Thessing v. State , 365 Ark. 384 , 408, 230 S.W.3d 526 , 544 (2006) ; Wertz v. State , 2016 Ark. 249 at 8, 493 S.W.3d 772 , 775-76 (court would review case where jury was erroneously submitted a single set of forms); Camargo v. State , 327 Ark. 631 , 641-42, 940 S.W.2d 464 , 469 (1997) (failure of jury to make the necessary written findings to impose the death penalty was essential to the jury's imposition of the death penalty); Bowen v. State , 322 Ark. 483 , 499, 911 S.W.2d 555 , 562 (1995). Here, Smith's argument does not fall within the first Wicks exception. Our case law is clear that Wicks presents only narrow exceptions that are to be rarely applied. Anderson v. State , 353 Ark. 384 , 398, 108 S.W.3d 592 , 600 (2003). As it pertains to jury forms, we have applied the exception when the jury has incorrectly filled out forms, when forms have been missing, when the jury failed to make written findings as required by law, or when the jury was presented with an aggravator that violated the ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. In such instances we say the circuit court had an obligation to remedy the matter. Instead, Smith argues that the court should have instructed the jury that person does not include an unborn child. See Section I, supra . While the prosecutor chose not to file a separate homicide charge for the death of Cherrish Allbright's unborn child, there is no question under Arkansas law that he could have. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-102 (13)(B)(i)(a). Smith would have us apply the exception here to his argument for a limited statutory interpretation; we decline to do so.