Pitts v. State
| Decision Date | 09 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-18-272,CR-18-272 |
| Citation | 591 S.W.3d 786,2020 Ark. 7 |
| Parties | Eugene Issac PITTS, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Eugene Issac Pitts, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of appellant Eugene Issac Pitts's petition for writ of error coram nobis that he filed after this court gave Pitts permission to proceed with that petition in Pitts v. State , 2016 Ark. 345, 501 S.W.3d 803 ( Pitts II ). Pitts's arguments on appeal turn on his claims that the trial court failed to conduct a proper analysis when it did not treat the admission of certain evidence as structural error and failed to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine. The error here was not structural, and the trial court's analysis was correct. Pitts failed to show an abuse of discretion, and we affirm.
Pitts was convicted of capital felony murder in 1979 for killing Dr. Bernard Jones in the course of kidnapping the North Little Rock veterinarian, and this court affirmed the judgment. Pitts v. State , 273 Ark. 220, 617 S.W.2d 849 (1981) ( Pitts I ). Pitts II concerned testimony of FBI agent Michael Malone on microscopic hair-comparison analysis. The Department of Justice (DOJ) repudiated Malone's testimony, concluding aspects of Malone's testimony at Pitts's trial exceeded the limits of science by overstating the probative value of hair-comparison analysis. 2016 Ark. 345, at 3–4, 501 S.W.3d at 805.
This court gave leave to proceed in Pitts II , referencing a companion case, Strawhacker v. State , 2016 Ark. 348, 500 S.W.3d 716, for its reasoning. Appointed counsel representing Pitts filed the error coram nobis petition in the trial court alleging a violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and that without Malone's testimony, there was a reasonable probability that Pitts would have been acquitted on the basis of the strengthened proposition of an alternative, white suspect. In the hearing on the petition, Pitts, representing himself, presented no evidence, instead asserting what he contended was the correct method of analysis and the applicable standard to be applied.
In its order, the trial court first determined that no Brady violation had occurred; then, after specifically referencing an instruction in Strawhacker to consider whether the writ should be granted under the rule of reason or to prevent a miscarriage of justice, it declined to issue the writ. The trial court found that Pitts had not demonstrated that Malone's testimony was material or, even if the testimony was material, that Pitts had met his burden of showing a reasonable probability that, had the DOJ's repudiation been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Referencing Pitts's brief, the trial court also stated that it was not convinced that there was a reasonable probability "on what remains" that Pitts would have been acquitted.
The standard of review for an order on a petition for writ of error coram nobis is abuse of discretion in granting or denying the writ. Osburn v. State , 2018 Ark. 341, 560 S.W.3d 774. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Id. In reinvesting the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider claims for issuance of the writ, this court tasks the circuit court with resolving factual disputes, and when it acts as a fact-finder, the circuit court determines the credibility of witnesses, resolves conflicts and inconsistencies in testimony, and assesses the weight to be given the evidence. Isom v. State , 2018 Ark. 368, 563 S.W.3d 533. This court reviews the trial court's factual findings for clear error. Id. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id.
The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment. Foreman v. State , 2018 Ark. 330, 2018 WL 5993554. The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Id. A writ of error coram nobis is available for addressing certain errors that are found in one of four categories: (1) insanity at the time of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or (4) a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Id. Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Id.
Pitts raises four points on appeal. The first two points, in contrast to Pitts's last two points, challenge the trial court's findings and are intertwined. In his first point, Pitts appears to take the position that the order did not reflect that the trial court conducted the full analysis required by this court, alleging (1) that the test outlined in Strawhacker meant that no harmless-error analysis could be employed; (2) that the correct test was one for structural error in which the only question was whether the repudiated testimony had been admitted and, if so, then there was sufficient prejudice to require issuance of the writ; (3) that he was not required to demonstrate a reasonable probability of acquittal; and (4) that the trial court was obligated to follow certain previous decisions to determine prejudice.
In his second point, Pitts contends that the trial court erred in finding that he had not met his burden of demonstrating a reasonable probability that the false testimony had undermined confidence in the outcome of the trial. He alleges this error occurred because the law-of-the-case doctrine applied to control the trial court's findings on materiality of the evidence. Pitts reiterated his previous claims, including that the error was structural, and averred that the repudiated testimony should be treated as incompetent testimony because the DoJ had indicated the statements should be treated as false evidence with knowledge of the false evidence imputed to the prosecution.
In his third and fourth points on appeal, Pitts asserts diligence and requests this court to issue the writ directly without remand. Because Pitts fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or error in denial of the writ, we need not consider those points.
In Strawhacker , this court stated that even if the claims in the petition did not fall neatly within one of the four recognized categories of error, the writ may be used to fill a procedural gap if, under the unique circumstances at hand, the rule of reason calls for a grant of the writ to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 2016 Ark. 348, at 6–7, 500 S.W.3d at 719–20. This court instructed the trial court that if it found the repudiated testimony was material, it should grant the writ. 2016 Ark. 348, at 7, 500 S.W.3d at 720. It explained that evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. In other words, had it been known that the hair-comparison testimony was erroneous, there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different. Id. Although his argument is not always clear, Pitts appears to assert that the court did not follow these instructions and failed to conduct a rule-of-reason analysis.1
A Brady violation is one type of error that may provide a basis for coram nobis relief, falling within the third category of error as withheld evidence. See Scott v. State , 2019 Ark. 94, 571 S.W.3d 451. Pitts does not contest the trial court's conclusion that there was no Brady violation, and his argument on appeal appears to be that the trial court's further analysis, after it concluded that the error does not fall within one of the four categories, was not correct. The trial court specifically referenced a rule-of-reason analysis, however, and all of Pitts's arguments that the trial court's analysis was improper hinge on the allegations that it failed to treat the error as structural error or to adopt previous holdings in the analysis.
The trial court correctly understood our instructions in Strawhacker to apply an analysis similar to that used for a Brady violation, although the circumstances here prevented the defect from falling within that category. See, e.g. , Jones v. State , 2017 Ark. 334, 531 S.W.3d 384. As the trial court found, evidence of the repudiation would have been favorable to the defense because, as Pitts asserts, the repudiated evidence came from an FBI agent and carried the weight of that office's credibility.
Application of the rule of reason to fill a procedural gap does not, however, expand the other restrictions on granting the writ. Penn v. State , 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). Pitts was required to demonstrate that the repudiation by the DOJ was a fact that would have prevented rendition of the judgment if it had been known at trial and that, as a consequence, the evidence was material. Although Pitts asserts that he was not required to demonstrate a reasonable probability of acquittal, he was required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had the DOJ's repudiation been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
Other courts have examined this issue and adopted standards under which the petitioner seeking relief must demonstrate that without the error, the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strawhacker v. State
...the rare circumstance of repudiated scientific testimony presented by an expert on behalf of the government. See Pitts v. State , 2020 Ark. 7, at 6–12, 591 S.W.3d 786, 791–94 (holding that the circuit court properly found that Malone's repudiated hair evidence was not material and that Pitt......
-
Smith v. State
...evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id., 500 S.W.3d 716; see Pitts v. State, 2020 Ark. 7, 591 S.W.3d 786. Here, Smith does not allege that he was not aware of Sanchez at the time of his trial or that the prosecution withheld her ex......
- Harris v. Hutchinson
-
Pitts v. Payne
... ... Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 68). In the ... motion, Petitioner requests the opportunity to supplement ... both his Amended Petition and his Reply to include Arkansas ... Supreme Court case Williams v. State , 2020 Ark. 224, ... 601 S.W.3d 418 (2020), where the court applied the ... law-of-the-case doctrine to find itself barred from ... revisiting its 2017 decision that Williams was precluded from ... obtaining writ of error coram nobis relief because he failed ... to ... ...