Court Opinion

ID: 9679868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:11:31.389587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:22.509490
License: Public Domain

T OM GLAZE, Justice, dissenting. The majority opinion clearly erred in its application of the standard of review. As the State points out in its petition for rehearing, the majority opinion resolved several factual disputes by considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant, Keenom, despite our consistent holdings that the evidence on appeal is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the appellee. See, e.g., Britt v. State, 344 Ark. 13, 38 S.W.3d 363 (2001); Benson v. State, 342 Ark. 684, 30 S.W.3d 731 (2000). For example, the majority opinion relies heavily on conflicting testimony that the officers’ interview of Keenom lasted as long as forty-five minutes, but Keenom’s own testimony reflected that the time span was about twenty minutes. Further, this court’s opinion reflects the belief that Keenom was denied the right to go inside his home to retrieve some clothing, and expresses a belief in Keenom’s statement that the officers refused to let him return to his trailer, thus concluding that Keenom’s testimony went unchallenged. However, there was absolutely nothing coercive or confrontational about this encounter between Keenom and the officers that would have prevented Keenom from terminating their exchange and going inside his residence. In fact, in oral argument, Keenom agreed that the officers denied Keenom’s testimony that he asked to go back inside his residence. The trial court is the ultimate arbiter of questions of credibility, see Green v. State, 334 Ark. 484, 978 S.W.2d 300 (1998), and it was not required to believe Keenom’s testimony on those evidentiary issues. Because the majority clearly and erroneously applied the standard of review in Keenom’s favor, I would grant rehearing in this case.