Casement v. State
884 S.W.2d 593, 318 Ark. 225, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 543 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Rules of judicial procedure created by a state's supreme court supersede conflicting statutes enacted by the legislature, as the regulation of practice and procedure is a core judicial function.
Facts:
- A jury found Jacque Casement guilty of conspiracy to deliver cocaine.
- The jury sentenced Casement to a term of eighteen years of imprisonment.
- Following the verdict and sentencing, Casement requested that the trial court set a bond for his appeal.
- The trial judge evaluated Casement's request under the standards of a newly enacted statute, Act 3 of 1994.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacque Casement was tried and convicted in Pulaski County Circuit Court, a state trial court.
- Immediately after sentencing, Casement made an oral request for an appeal bond.
- Casement subsequently filed a formal petition to set bail on appeal with the trial court.
- The trial court held a hearing and, applying the standards of Act 3 of 1994, entered an order denying the petition for an appeal bond.
- Casement filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Arkansas Supreme Court, the state's highest court, to review the trial court's order denying the bond.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, rather than a conflicting legislative act, govern the procedures and standards for granting a post-conviction appeal bond?
Opinions:
Majority - Corbin, J.
Yes. The Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure control the procedures for setting post-conviction appeal bonds, not a conflicting legislative act. The court's authority to prescribe rules of practice and procedure for criminal cases is a long-standing judicial power. Post-conviction appeal bond provisions are procedural, as they provide the process by which a defendant may obtain release, rather than defining substantive rights. Citing the test from State v. Sypult, the court will only defer to a conflicting legislative act if the court rule's primary purpose and effectiveness are not compromised. Here, Act 3 of 1994 directly conflicts with the court's established rules by imposing a different burden of proof and additional criteria. Therefore, the court's rules remain supreme, and the trial court erred by applying the statute.
Dissenting - Hays, J.
No. The legislative act should be applied because it merely supplements, rather than conflicts with, the court's existing rules. The dissent argues there is no conflict because the statute adds requirements on which the court's rules are silent, such as a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard and a finding that the appeal is not for purposes of delay. These additions do not compromise the 'primary purpose and effectiveness' of the court's rules and should be harmonized with them. The majority's decision nullifies a valid legislative enactment and extends the court's rulemaking authority too far.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the Arkansas Supreme Court's authority over matters of judicial procedure as a core function under the separation of powers doctrine. It affirms that when a legislative statute directly conflicts with a court's procedural rule, the court's rule prevails. This decision limits the legislature's power to dictate the specific processes and standards used within courtroom proceedings, such as setting bail, ensuring the judiciary maintains control over its own internal operations. The holding reinforces the precedent set in State v. Sypult as the controlling framework for resolving such conflicts.
