Randy Paul Brown v. State of Arkansas — Hannah, J., Concurring

Summary

The concurrence agrees with the majority's result because it follows existing precedent but argues that the precedent interpreting the sentencing-evidence statute is erroneous. It maintains that the rules of evidence govern admissibility during both the guilt and sentencing phases, so character evidence excluded under Rule 404(b) cannot be admitted solely under statutory authority. The concurrence urges the court to correct that statutory interpretation at the first opportunity.