Court Opinion

ID: 9769015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:02:48.851639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:52.363228
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. I believe the majority opinion in Midgett v. State, 292 Ark. 278, 729 S.W.2d 410 (1987), held that murder in the first degree could not be committed by “child abuse” regardless of the evidence. I agree with the result reached but sympathize with the petitioner who will not comprehend how she can be guilty when the decision in her case has been overturned. She must seek relief in the federal courts or through clemency proceedings. John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. Petitioner seeks permission from this Court to proceed in the trial court pursuant to Rule 37. She relies on our decision in Midgett v. State, 292 Ark. 278, 729 S.W.2d 410 (1987), in which we admitted error in our holding in Burnett v. State, 287 Ark. 158, 697 S.W.2d 95 (1985), because in Burnett we failed to state any reason to infer premeditation and deliberation from the circumstances. Petitioner is understandably concerned because she was the appellant in the Burnett decision. The question presented is whether the petitioner should receive the same consideration we gave to the appellant in Midgett, which was decided after her case was affirmed. This is a question of first impression. There is no other avenue for relief that I know of which petitioner has available. Certainly the basis of this petition could not have been pursued on direct appeal nor may she proceed directly in the trial court without the permission of this Court. I believe this is a matter which should be considered under Rule 37. Therefore, I would grant the petition to proceed in the trial court.