Lovett v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 648 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I CACR 10-36 No. Opinion Delivered September ANDREW LOVETT APPELLANT 29, 2010 APPEAL FROM THE UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-08-373-4] V. HONORABLE HARVEY YATES, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Judge A jury in Union County found appellant Andrew Lovett guilty of second-degree murder, found that he used a firearm in committing the offense for sentence enhancement purposes, and found that he was also guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. As an habitual offender, appellant received consecutive sentences totaling sixty-eight years in prison. For reversal, appellant contends that the circuit court erred in ruling that the State could crossexamine him about a prior manslaughter conviction and that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to introduce into evidence a photograph depicting the deceased’s body. For the reasons discussed herein, we order rebriefing. Rule 4-2(a)(5) provides that an appellant shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the transcripts in the record. Further, the rule states that information is considered Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 648 material if it is essential for the appellate court to decide the issues on appeal. By way of example, material information may be found in counsel’s statements and arguments, as well as colloquies between court and counsel, and the court’s rulings. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 42(a)(5)(A). In this appeal, appellant challenges two evidentiary rulings made by the circuit court, arguing in each instance that the prejudicial effect exceeded the probative value of the evidence. In his abstract, appellant has properly included the discussions between court and counsel and the court’s rulings on appellant’s objections. However, appellant has failed to abstract any of the testimony offered at trial. The testimony elicited from the witnesses is necessary to decide the issues raised on appeal because we cannot determine either the probative value or the prejudicial effect of the contested evidence without having a clear picture of the overall evidence presented at trial. Accordingly, we order rebriefing and direct counsel to file a substituted brief curing this deficiency within fifteen days of this opinion. Rebriefing ordered. G RUBER and B AKER, JJ., agree. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.