Court Opinion

ID: 9800099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 07:55:08.171585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:47.629914
License: Public Domain

KAREN R. BAKER, Justice, concurring. I write separately because I believe that Hampton did not change his argument on appeal as the majority suggests. However, because I would still affirm this case, I concur. ┴8Hampton’s counsel stated at trial, “[this case] has created a conflict of whether or not [the existence of an extreme emotional disturbance] is something that the defense has to prove or the State has to unprove or whether or not raising it is enough to create a reasonable doubt.” The majority holds that this objection was not the same as an argument under Fincham v. State, 2013 Ark. 204, 427 S.W.3d 643. In Fincham, we held that it was the State’s burden to prove that a murder was not manslaughter. I do not see a distinction between the two arguments. Hampton’s argument fully apprised the circuit court of the argument he makes on appeal. I would still affirm the case, however, because I believe that the jury instruction given by the circuit court put the burden on the State to prove that the murder was not manslaughter. Therefore, I concur. HART, J., joins in this concurrence.