Court Opinion

ID: 9762935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:34:09.95138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.575076
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. The majority states that in the event of a conflict between rules of this court and laws enacted by the legislature, we will defer to the General Assembly only to the extent that our rule’s “primary purpose and effectiveness are not compromised.” State v. Sypult, 304 Ark. 5, 800 S.W.2d 402 (1990). The majority then simply declares, without analysis, that the statute in this case is in conflict with our rules. In my estimation the element of conflict between our rules and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-110 (Supp. 1993), is nonexistent, and therefore no need to supersede is presented. The statute consists only of matters supplementary to our rules affecting appeal bonds. For purposes of this case, the only differences between the rules and the statute are: 1. § 16-91-110 (both the 1987 and 1994 versions) provides that the unlikelihood of the defendant fleeing, etc., must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. In A.R.Cr.P. 36.5, the same intent must be demonstrated, but no standard for the burden of proof is mentioned. 2. § 16-91-110 (both the 1987 and 1994 versions) requires that the defendant must show the appeal is not for purposes of delay and that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact. There is no similar or conflicting provision in our criminal procedure rules. Even applying the holding of Sypult, supra, I fail to see how the “primary purpose and effectiveness” of our criminal rules on appeal bonds are “compromised,” as there is simply an absence of conflict between the rules and the legislative enactment. The additions by the legislature merely supplement the rules and it has been our practice to harmonize the rules with legislative enactments whenever possible. See Morton Gitelman and John Watkins, No Requiem for Ricarte, 1991 Ark. L. Notes 27. The majority holding cuts too wide a path with its rule making authority and takes the Sypult holding farther than is judicially sound. That case has already been soundly criticized and today’s decision only exacerbates the problems it created. Id. In sum I find no basis for this court’s nullification of the legislature’s additions to this area of the law, and I respectfully dissent. Glaze, J., joins in this dissent. Brown, J., not participating.