Court Opinion

ID: 9729177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:28:42.03924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.887253
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. While I agree to affirm, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the circuit court erred. The State moved in limine to exclude the testimony concerning a computer-generated-voice threat, arguing hearsay, relevancy, and prejudice. Specifically, the State submitted that because McKeever’s mother had no idea who the person was on the other end of the phone, she should not be allowed to testify concerning the content of that person’s remarks because the content of those remarks was hearsay, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial. The circuit court granted the State’s motion. However, on appeal, McKeever only argues that the circuit court erred on the relevancy issue. He simply ignores the hearsay and prejudicial grounds ruled on by the circuit court. In order to prove error, McKeever was required to argue that the computer-generated-voice threat was not only relevant, but also that it was not inadmissible hearsay or the threat was not unfairly prejudicial.1 For instance, evidence, even though relevant, can be excluded under the other rules of evidence. See Ark. R. Evid. 402. In other words, even though the circuit court may have erred in ruling that the evidence was irrelevant (as concluded by the majority), the circuit court’s ruling could have been upheld as evidence that was inadmissible hearsay or unfairly prejudicial. See Ark. R. Evid. 801 et seq. and Ark. R. Evid. 403. Because McKeever failed to address these two additional arguments raised by the State, and ruled on by the circuit court, this court should not conclude the circuit court erred merely by ruling that the computer-generated-voice threat was relevant. Dickey, J., joins.   The State, in its reply brief, argued that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant. The State’s analysis of this point demonstrates that it, too, understood that McKeever was required to address the additional grounds argued by the State and ruled on by the circuit court in order for us to conclude circuit court error.