David Smoak v. State of Arkansas — Corbin, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

Justice Corbin agreed that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction but disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse and remand for consideration of an entrapment instruction. She concluded that the defendant failed to preserve the issue because he did not proffer an entrapment instruction, despite having an opportunity to do so. Justice Baker, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed that the Mathews rule applied but would have affirmed because any instructional error was harmless.