Kendrick Hampton, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed Hampton’s convictions and sentence, holding that his argument concerning the State’s burden to disprove extreme emotional disturbance was not preserved because it differed from the objection made below. The court also declined to address his claim concerning a potentially divided jury because the record showed no such division and the question was hypothetical. Justice Baker, joined by Justice Hart, concurred, reasoning that the burden argument was preserved but that the instructions nevertheless placed the burden on the State.