Jackson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 94
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 08-459
DARIUS JACKSON,
Opinion Delivered
APPELLANT,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
February 26, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR 2006-4535,
HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JR.,
JUDGE,
REBRIEFING ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Darius Jackson appeals from his conviction for capital murder and his
sentence to life imprisonment without parole. Because his brief fails to comply with our
rules, we order rebriefing.1
Our abstracting rule, provides, in pertinent part:
(5) Abstract. The appellant’s abstract or abridgment of the transcript should
consist of an impartial condensation, without comment or emphasis, of only
such material parts of the testimony of the witnesses and colloquies between
the court and counsel and other parties as are necessary to an understanding of
1
We further note some confusion regarding the circuit court’s order appointing counsel. Not
only does the order find Jackson indigent and appoint the Public Defender as Jackson’s counsel, the
order was entered after Jackson’s notice of appeal was filed. “After the notice of appeal of a
judgment of conviction has been filed, the appellate court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to relieve
counsel and appoint counsel.” Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 16(a) (2008). Thus, it appears that Jackson’s
current counsel has not yet been appointed to represent him.
Cite as 2009 Ark. 94
all questions presented to the Court for decision. . . . Not more than one page
of the transcript shall in any instance be abstracted without a page reference
to the transcript. In the abstracting of testimony, the first person (i.e., “I”)
rather than the third person (i.e., “He, She”) shall be used. The Clerk will
refuse to accept a brief if the testimony is not abstracted in the first person or
if the abstract does not contain the required references to the record. Whenever
a map, plat, 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 with a reference
in the abstract to the page in the Addendum where the exhibit appears unless
this requirement is shown to be impracticable and is waived by the Court upon
motion.
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5). In addition, in life-imprisonment cases, such as this one,
the Court must review all errors prejudicial to the appellant in accordance with
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-113(a). To make that review possible, the appellant
must abstract, or include in the Addendum, as appropriate, all rulings adverse
to him or her made by the circuit court on all objections, motions and requests
made by either party, together with such parts of the record as are needed for
an understanding of each adverse ruling. The Attorney General will make
certain and certify that all of those objections have been abstracted, or included
in the Addendum, and will brief all points argued by the appellant and any
other points that appear to involve prejudicial error.
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h) (2008).
Rule 4-2(b)(3) sets forth the procedure to be followed when an appellant has failed
to supply this court with an adequate brief:
(3) Whether or not the appellee has called attention to deficiencies in the
appellant’s abstract or Addendum, the Court may address the question at any
time. If the Court finds the abstract or Addendum to be deficient such that the
Court cannot reach the merits of the case, or such as to cause an unreasonable
or unjust delay in the disposition of the appeal, the Court will notify the
appellant that he or she will be afforded an opportunity to cure any
deficiencies, and has fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract,
-2-
CR 08-459
Cite as 2009 Ark. 94
Addendum, and brief, at his or her own expense, to conform to Rule 4-2 (a)(5)
and (8). Mere modifications of the original brief by the appellant, as by
interlineation, will not be accepted by the Clerk. Upon the filing of such a
substituted brief by the appellant, the appellee will be afforded an opportunity
to revise or supplement the brief, at the expense of the appellant or the
appellant’s counsel, as the Court may direct. If after the opportunity to cure
the deficiencies, the appellant fails to file a complying abstract, Addendum and
brief within the prescribed time, the judgment or decree may be affirmed for
noncompliance with the Rule.
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
In reviewing Jackson’s brief and record, we have found the following deficiencies in
his brief, including, but certainly not limited to: (1) the failure to abstract the renewals of his
directed-verdict motion; (2) the failure to abstract the testimony of the State’s rebuttal
witness; (3) the failure to abstract objections adverse to Jackson made during closing
arguments;2 (4) the failure to reference the record in certain portions of the abstract; (5) the
failure to abstract a certain question posed by the jury; (6) the failure to reproduce in the
addendum the exhibits Jackson wished reviewed in conjunction with his arguments on
appeal, including his statements to police;3 and (7) the failure to reference the record in his
abstract using the actual page numbers of the record and not the page numbers for each
hearing or trial transcript. In addition, Jackson’s abstract of his trial is not sequential;
2
While the State did, in accordance with our rules, provide a supplemental abstract that
included adverse rulings to Jackson that he failed to abstract, these certain objections were not
abstracted by either party.
3
Instead of reproducing the exhibits, Jackson has merely included the court reporter’s
introductory page for each exhibit. These essentially blank pages are of no assistance to this court.
-3-
CR 08-459
Cite as 2009 Ark. 94
instead, portions of the trial are abstracted out of order and are sometimes duplicated, making
it difficult to follow the testimony and events of the trial.
Because Jackson has failed to comply with our rules, we order Jackson to file a
substituted brief, which complies with our rules, within fifteen days from the date of entry
of this order.
Rebriefing ordered.
-4-
CR 08-459
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.