Williams v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 582 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR09-355 Opinion Delivered 11-19-09 RODERICK WILLIAMS, APPELLANT, VS. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE, APPEAL FROM THE DESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CR2007-50-4, HONORABLE DON EDWARD GLOVER, JUDGE, ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD ISSUED. THE PER CURIAM Appellant Roderick Williams appeals from his convictions for capital murder, kidnapping, felon in possession of a firearm, first-degree domestic battery, and first-degree child endangerment and his sentence to life imprisonment without parole. Among his points on appeal is a claim that he was prejudiced by the circuit judge’s erroneous admission of hearsay evidence. Williams claims that the hearsay evidence was “manifestly prejudicial because it constituted the only evidence heard by the jury that pertained to [his] state of mind just prior to the murder.” In response to this point, the State has argued that it asserted alternative theories of capital murder at trial—that is, that the jury could have found Williams acted with the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of another person under § 5-10- Cite as 2009 Ark. 582 101(a)(4) or that he caused the death of another person in the course of and in furtherance of the felony of kidnapping under § 5-10-101(a)(1)—and that Williams cannot demonstrate prejudice based on the fact that the jury returned a general verdict of “guilty” on the capital murder charge. In order for this court to conduct an adequate review of this point on appeal, we must have before us the jury’s verdict forms. However, these forms have not been included in the record presented to this court. Pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil, we order that the record on appeal be supplemented by a certified supplemental record to include the verdict forms within fifteen days of the issuance of this opinion. See Anderson v. State, 351 Ark. 675, 100 S.W.3d 48 (2003); Snell v. State, 290 Ark. 184, 717 S.W.2d 818 (1986). -2- CR09-355

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.