Hyatt v. State , 2017 Ark. 296 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     Cite as 
    2017 Ark. 296
    SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
    No.   CR-16-800
    VIRGINIA ANN HYATT                                  Opinion Delivered   November 2, 2017
    APPELLANT
    APPEAL FROM THE MILLER
    V.                                                  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    [NO. 46CR-14-8]
    STATE OF ARKANSAS                                   HONORABLE RANDY WRIGHT,
    APPELLEE          JUDGE
    REMAND TO SETTLE THE
    RECORD .
    KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice
    On February 8, 2016, appellant, Virginia Ann Hyatt, was convicted by a Miller
    County Circuit Court jury of one count of capital murder in the December 3, 2013 death of
    Patricia Wheelington and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of
    parole. On February 29, 2016, Hyatt timely filed her notice of appeal. On appeal, Hyatt
    raises one point: the circuit court erred by denying Hyatt’s motion to direct a verdict of not
    guilty based on insufficiency of the direct and circumstantial evidence to prove that Hyatt
    caused the death of Wheelington with premeditated and deliberate purpose. However, based
    on the record before the court, we are unable to reach the merits of this case and remand the
    matter to the circuit court to settle the record.
    In this case, it is impossible to determine from the record what was in front of the jury.
    The State introduced multiple surveillance videos and photographs in its case-in-chief, State’s
    Cite as 
    2017 Ark. 296
    Exhibits nos. 191–196. However, State’s exhibit no. 191 is only in the record and not the
    addendum, and the record is absent evidence that exhibit no. 191 was shown to the jury.
    Further, the record is absent evidence that the EZ Mart video, State’s exhibit no. 194 showing
    the car that was alleged to be similar to Hyatt’s, was introduced or shown to the jury because
    the video submitted in the record and the addendum are indecipherable. Also, the still photos
    from the EZ Mart surveillance photos, exhibits no. 195 and no. 196 are not consistent with
    the testimony regarding the photos.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(a) and Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6(e),
    we remand the matter to settle the record. Under Rule 6(e), the circuit court may settle any
    difference that “arises as to whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the circuit
    court.” The rule further provides that the circuit court can correct omissions from the
    record by error or accident or misstatements therein. See McGehee v. State, 
    328 Ark. 404
    , 
    943 S.W.2d 585
    (1997). Here, it is unclear what information is contained in the videos and
    photos and whether that evidence was presented to, or considered by, the jury. We have
    explained that it is not the purpose of settling the record to introduce evidence that was not
    introduced at trial. Tackett v. First Sav. of Ark., 
    306 Ark. 15
    , 
    810 S.W.2d 927
    (1991)
    (discussing Ark. R. App. P. –Civ. 6(e), the predecessor to our current Ark. R. App. P.–Civ.
    6(e)). Therefore, we remand this matter to the circuit court to settle the record.
    Remanded to settle the record.
    Phillip A. McGough, P.A., by: Phillip A. McGough, for appellant.
    Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CR-16-800

Citation Numbers: 2017 Ark. 296

Judges: Karen R. Baker

Filed Date: 11/2/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/2/2017