Court Opinion

ID: 9516829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:53:31.567595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:26.545955
License: Public Domain

Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, concurring. I agree with the majority opinion to affirm the circuit court. I write separately because, in my view, the majority should not have addressed the merits of Hunt’s first point on appeal. In his first point, Hunt argues that, due to the rifle’s degradation over time, it was not a “firearm” as contemplated by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-102(6) (Repl. 1997). This court does not address arguments made for the first time on appeal. Barrett v. State, 354 Ark. 187, 119 S.W.3d 485 (2003). Moreover, a party cannot change the grounds for an objection or motion on appeal, but is bound by the scope of arguments made at trial. Smith v. State, 354 Ark. 226, 118 S.W.3d 542 (2003). At trial, the following colloquy took place during Hunt’s motion for directed verdict: Defense Counsel: As far as Count III, possession of firearm by certain persons, the prosecutor did prove that Mr. Hunt has been convicted of a felony in the past, but they have not proven that Mr. Hunt possessed a firearm. Your Honor, under 5-1-102, firearm under the general definition under the Arkansas Code defines firearm as means any device designed, made or adapted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive any device readily convertible to that use, including such a device that is not loaded or lacks a clip or other component, and this is the important part, to render it immediately operable and components that can be readily assembled into such a device. Your Honor, the testimony was today from all the officers involved that the rifle that was admitted as States’s Exhibit No. 2 is rusted. There’s dirt in the barrel. There was testimony that there was mud in the barrel the night that Mr. Hunt was arrested. Of course that’s going to dry up and be dirt at this point in time. Officer Thomas could not tell us whether that rifle was able to be fired or not. He did testify that he would not choose to use that to fire himself, so the State has not proven that that is a firearm. The Court: I’m going to deny that. If I’m looking at the definition, it’s —That’s a rifle. It’s clearly designed to expel a projectile, and the way the definition reads is it’s — The definition includes a device that’s not loaded, which that one wasn’t, and includes a device that doesn’t lack, that doesn’t have a dip, and it includes a device that doesn’t even have a component necessary to render it immediately operable. Now, whether that was going to blow up on anybody who tried to use it or not, it doesn’t matter under the definition. That’s clearly a device that fits the definition, and the testimony so far has been he had possession of it. Now, intent as to what, he’s going to do with it doesn’t make any difference under that charge. He is a felon so far, subject to y’all’s testimony, that a convicted felon that had possession of that device, and that is a firearm, so it will be denied. Defense Counsel: Our argument is, though, it’s not immediately operable. The Court: And I think if you read — Defense Counsel: I mean, I don’t think the law says, you know, requires you to show what the intent of the person possessing the instrument. I think it goes to whether that device is able to be fired. The Court: Right. Well, under the definition of 5-1-102 the way I read it, it doesn’t matter if— It doesn’t even matter if that was missing a piece, a component that was necessary to make it immediately operable. It’s still constitutes a firearm, and the testimony so far has been he’s in possession. And quite frankly, whether an officer would choose it or not doesn’t matter. I don’t know if it’s going to blow up if you try to shoot it or not. None of us do. It’s clearly a firearm, so we’ll deny. The directed verdict is denied on that. Defense Counsel: Although I think the State has to prove that. As far as Count II, the simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, I have the same argument for that,Your Honor.That the State has not proven that this is a firearm because they have not shown, which they are required to do under the law, to show that it is immediately operable. Or to put in a clip, or bullet or whatever device is missing to make it immediately operable. Although that hasn’t been the testimony today. The testimony has been, you know, that it’s rusted, it’s muddy. I mean, we’re not arguing that there’s a piece that was taken off the gun, a firing pin or what have you that the Defendant could have put in there to actually make it operable. It’s not operable ‘cause it’s rusted, and muddy and dirty. No less than four times during his motion for directed verdict to the circuit court, Hunt asserted that the rifle was not a firearm because it was “not immediately operable.” On appeal, Hunt concedes that “the General assembly did not intend to require that a ‘firearm’ be immediately operable.” Instead, he now argues that “there must be some temporal limit on what may be considered a ‘firearm.’” Stated more specifically, Hunt contends that due to degradation over time, the rifle lost its essential characteristics as a rifle and ceased to be a “firearm” under Arkansas law. It is clear that Hunt has abandoned his argument to the trial court that the rifle must be “immediately operable,” and has now changed the scope of his argument on appeal to contend that a rifle loses its characteristics as a firearm due to degradation over time. It is also clear that the trial court was never presented with the argument Hunt now makes on appeal. As already stated, this court does not address arguments made for the first time on appeal. Barrett v. State, 354 Ark. 187, 119 S.W.3d 485 (2003). Accordingly, I would not address the merits of Hunt’s first point on appeal. I also note that Hunt urges this court to open our review for a plain-error analysis and address his argument relating to the sufficiency of the evidence. This court has steadfastly refused to adopt a version of the federal plain-error rule. Lynch v. Blagg, 312 Ark. 80, 847 S.W.2d 32 (1993). Indeed, Rule 33.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the’failure of a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence will constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1 (2003); Newman v. State, 353 Ark. 258, 106 S.W.3d 438 (2003). Hunt now asks this court to overrule long-standing precedent and rules of procedure. First, Hunt explains that this court has already evidenced a willingness to recognize claims of fundamental error through Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980). The four recognized Wicks exceptions are: (1) when the trial court fails to bring to the jury’s attention a matter essential to its consideration of the death penalty itself; (2) when defense counsel has no knowledge of the error and hence no opportunity to object; (3) when the error is so flagrant and so highly prejudicial in character as to make it the duty of the court on its own motion to have instructed the jury correctly; and (4) under Ark. R. Evid. 103(d) the appellate courtis not precluded from taking notice of errors affecting substantial rights, although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court. Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384, 108 S.W.3d 592 (2003). Nonetheless, this court has never held, and Hunt makes no persuasive argument, that the failure of a party to move for a directed verdict falls within one of the Wicks exceptions. Quite to the contrary, this court has held that the Wicks exceptions do not cover a failure to move for a directed verdict in connection with a claim of insufficient evidence to support a jury’s findings on aggravating circumstances at the penalty phase of a capital murder case. Smith v. State, 343 Ark. 552, 39 S.W.3d 739 (2001); see also Lovelady v. State, 326 Ark. 196, 931 S.W.2d 430 (1996)(holding sufficiency claim not preserved and later addressing the Wicks exceptions). Hunt also maintains that the application of Rule 10 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure — Criminal operates to deny him due process of law. Rule 10 provides for an automatic appeal and mandatory review in death-sentence cases. Ark. R. App. Proc. — Crim. 10 (2003). However, Rule 10 does not permit this court to review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims in cases where the defense failed to move for a directed verdict. As such, Hunt has failed to demonstrate that he has been treated differently from a defendant sentenced to death. Finally, Hunt asserts that opening review to plain error will prevent further litigation in the context of postconviction proceedings and will also promote the interests of fair trials and due .process. Yet, he does not explain how such policy considerations demonstrate that a plain-error review is anything but discretionary with this court. Again, we have steadfastly refused to adopt a version of the federal plain-error rule. Lynch v. Blagg, supra. In sum, Hunt has failed to preserve either one of his two arguments on appeal. Accordingly, I agree that his sentence and conviction should be affirmed. Brown, J., not participating.