Pubdate: Thu, 15 Feb 2001
Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (AR)
Copyright: 2001 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.
Contact:  121 East Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201
Website: http://www.ardemgaz.com/
Forum: http://www.ardemgaz.com/info/voices.html Author: Larry Ault - 
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

  APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS DRUG CONVICTIONS OF PAIR

The Arkansas Court of Appeals on Wednesday reversed a lower court in 
the case of two people convicted on charges of growing marijuana and 
possession of drug paraphernalia.

In a decision written by Court of Appeals Judge Olly Neal, the court 
overturned the convictions and ordered new trials for Jimmy Easley 
and Vicky Wagner Easley, who each had been sentenced to 20 years in 
prison. The two asked the appeals court to overturn their convictions 
in Clark County Circuit Court because the trial judge, Circuit Judge 
John A. Thomas, had improperly communicated with the jury after it 
began deliberating. They also contended that the judge erred by 
allowing the state to introduce as evidence 39 exhibits that 
prosecutors failed to share with defense attorneys during pretrial 
discovery.

Because the appeals court agreed that the trial judge had made a 
mistake by communicating with the jury after it began deliberations, 
it didn't issue a decision on the evidence challenge.

During deliberations, the jury sent two notes containing questions to 
the trial judge. The appeals court said that the trial record does 
not contain the jury's note or the court's answer to the question: 
"We don't all agree on the verdict, what happens?"

The second note dealt with questions about a photograph and what it 
represented. The court record showed that the photograph had been 
withdrawn from evidence even though the jury had seen it.

"Absent a record of the actual exchange between the judge and the 
jury, the state cannot overcome the presumption that the defendant 
has been prejudiced," the appeals court ruled.

The appeals court ruled that the state failed to establish "what the 
trial judge's note to the jury actually said" and held the judge's 
action was prejudicial to the Easleys.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Kirk Bauer