Opinion ID: 1426463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Miner v. State

Text: In affirming the trial court, the Arkansas Court of Appeals cited Miner v. State, 342 Ark. 283, 28 S.W.3d 280 (2000), and declined to reach appellant's argument because he did not request a directed verdict and dismissal until after he was sentenced. In Miner, supra , this Court applied the requirements of Ark. R.Crim. P. 33.1(2000) to revocation hearings so that motions for directed verdict and to dismiss must be requested after presentation of all the evidence, just as in non-jury trials. Appellant asks that this Court reconsider its holding in Miner ; or, in the alternative, modify Miner so that it does not affect cases decided before April 26, 2000, the date of the Miner decision. Appellant points out that Miner, supra , was decided after his revocation hearing. Appellant reminds the Court that revocations are not like trials specified in Ark. R.Crim. P. 33.1, where the rules of evidence do apply and the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, revocation hearings are informal hearings, where rules of evidence are not followed and the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. The State maintains that Miner should apply and that appellant's argument was not preserved for appeal. The State asserts that Miner did not create new law, but simply interpreted Rule 33.1(b). Rule 33.1 had been amended on April 8, 1999, to require a defendant to make timely motions for directed verdict and dismissal in non-jury trials, just as in jury trialsat the end of the evidence. This Court, in a 5-2 decision on April 26, 2000, in the Miner case, interpreted this amendment to apply to revocation hearings, as well. Appellant's revocation hearing was held on January 31, 2000, indeed after the effective date of the amendment of Rule 33.1, but before this Court interpreted same to be applicable to revocation hearings. We now reconsider our holding in Miner and find appellant's argument persuasive. We hold that our decision in Miner, supra , was incorrect; as such, we hold that Ark. R.Crim. P. 33.1 and the requirements thereof, pertaining to motions for dismissal and directed verdicts, do not apply to revocation hearings. Consequently, we hold that appellant's motion for directed verdict made after sentencing was proper and did preserve his argument for appeal.