Matthews v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 333 Ark. 701,970 S.W.2d 289 |
| Parties | Shirley MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 97-267. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
The appellant, Shirley Matthews, was convicted of arson, conspiracy to commit arson, and attempted theft of property. The conspiracy conviction was subsequently vacated by the trial court. Matthews was sentenced to a twenty-year prison term on the arson conviction and a six-year prison term on the attempted theft of property conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in Matthews v. State, CACR 94-1007, 1996 WL 189989 (April 17, 1996). Matthews subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Criminal Procedure Rule 37. After a hearing, the Circuit Court filed a written order that denied the petition. Matthews now appeals that order. We affirm.
The allegations in Matthews's petition centered around defense counsel's objection to the introduction of hearsay evidence during the testimony of Matthews's alleged co-conspirator, Peggy Urick. According to Matthews, her attorney objected when the State attempted to elicit the hearsay statements of Matthews's mother, Mildred Gunther. During the objection, the following colloquy ensued:
to that argument, Shirley Matthews is charged not only with arson but conspiracy to commit arson, and Mildred Gunter is also named as a co-conspirator and therefore any statements ...
in, there has to be more than this witness' statements in
order to allow the hearsay in.
PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, if you want to go back, outside the presence of the jury, you know, I'll give the Court a briefing on the issue, but the Court is well aware that the
co-conspirators need not be charged and that is what the law of Arkansas is. The co-conspirators need not be charged in order for a conspiracy to exist and their statements to be admissible.
THE COURT: All right. Since the Court has been informed of the fact that Ms. Gunter is a co-conspirator and an accomplice, your motion, your objection, will be overruled and you will be allowed to pursue this testimony.
In her petition, Matthews alleged that, despite the objection, her counsel was ineffective at this point in her trial. Specifically, she argued that her counsel should not only have objected to the admissibility of Mildred Gunter's statements, but also to the manner in which they were introduced. Matthews suggested that a hearing should have been conducted, outside the presence of the jury, to determine if there was enough independent evidence of a conspiracy, as required by the applicable Rule of Evidence. According to Matthews, it was error for the trial court to allow the introduction of Mildred Gunter's statements on the prosecutor's word that she was a co-conspirator. Matthews further argued that her attorney should have objected to certain individual statements as not being "in furtherance" of the alleged conspiracy.
The next allegation in Matthews's petition focused on the trial judge's statement at the end of the colloquy: "Since the Court has been informed of the fact that Ms. Gunter is a co-conspirator, and an accomplice, your motion, your objection, will be overruled ..." Matthews asserts that her counsel should have lodged an objection to the trial court's statement because it amounted to an improper instruction to the jury on a factual issue--that Mildred Gunter was a co-conspirator and accomplice. Additionally, Matthews alleged that the statement also instructed the jury, to some extent, on Gunter's credibility as she later testified for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Echols v. State, 99-1060
...in his petition. The State relies on the cases of Beshears v. State, 340 Ark. 70, 8 S.W.3d 32 (2000), and Matthews v. State, 333 Ark. 701, 970 S.W.2d 289 (1998) (per curiam), in which this court held that where the trial court makes specific findings on some, but not all, of the issues rais......
-
Burnside v. State
...of ineffective assistance of counsel through the perspective of the totality of the evidence put before the jury. Matthews v. State , 333 Ark. 701, 970 S.W.2d 289 (1998). In this case, M.H. testified—without objection—that Burnside had sex with her in three locations and that by sex, she me......
-
Flores v. State
...assistance of counsel must view it through the perspective of the totality of the evidence put before the jury. Matthews v. State, 333 Ark. 701, 970 S.W.2d 289 (1998). The presumption can be overcome by demonstrating that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the......
-
Dulaney v. State
...a ruling on Rule 37 issue at the trial court level, including a constitutional issue, precludes review on appeal. Matthews v. State, 333 Ark. 701, 970 S.W.2d 289 (1998). Therefore, this claim is procedurally Appellant's fourth claim is that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to objec......