Lofton v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 103 (unpublished)
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CACR 08-693
JOSHUA LEALLEN LOFTON
APPELLANT
Opinion Delivered February 18, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR 07-3693]
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE WILLARD PROCTOR,
JR., JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Judge
On September 14, 2007, the Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney filed a felony
information charging appellant, Joshua Leallen Lofton, with the offenses of capital murder, a
class Y felony, and aggravated robbery, also a class Y felony. The information also sought a
sentence enhancement for employing a firearm when committing these offenses. Appellant
filed a petition to transfer the charges to the juvenile division of circuit court because he was
only seventeen years old when he allegedly committed these crimes. The trial court denied the
motion, and appellant now appeals, arguing that the court’s decision is contrary to the evidence.
We must order rebriefing.
The events giving rise to the charges in this case occurred on July 22, 2007, in the
parking lot of Wal-Mart on McCain Boulevard in North Little Rock. Appellant stands accused
of striking Linda Garner on the head with a handgun, stealing her purse, and in flight from this
offense, using the gun to shoot and kill Dean Warden. A video camera atop Wal-Mart recorded
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 103 (unpublished)
the incident. At the transfer hearing, the trial court admitted into evidence a compact disc
containing the footage from Wal-Mart, and the court viewed the images on the disc.
Rule 4-2(a)(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals requires an
abstract to consist of an impartial condensation of the material parts of the testimony as is
necessary for a full understanding of the issues on appeal. This subsection of the rule also
provides that, whenever a photograph or other similar exhibit must be examined for a clear
understanding of the testimony, the appellant shall reproduce the exhibit by photography or
other process and include it in the addendum.
The trial court in this case relied on the images portrayed on the compact disc in making
its decision. By this appeal, we are being called upon to determine whether the evidence
supports the trial court’s decision. Consequently, the disc is a material part of the record, and
it is necessary for us to examine the exhibit in order to have a full understanding of the
testimony along with the trial court’s ruling. Thus, Rule 4-2(a)(5) requires appellant to include
reproductions of the disc in the addenda of the briefs filed with this court. Because appellant
failed to do so, we order rebriefing within fifteen days of this opinion.
We make one final observation. After numerous attempts using the most current mediaplayer applications, we were unable to access the contents of the compact disc contained in the
record. Appellant is directed to provide this court with operable copies of the exhibit.
Rebriefing ordered.
H ART and G LOVER, 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.
