State of Arkansas, Appellant v. Shawn Trevell Rainer, Appellee — Hart, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent would have affirmed the circuit court’s grant of a new trial because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to renew an objection to the exclusion of evidence after the State presented its case and the evidentiary context had become clearer. It contends that the majority improperly treated the case as involving only reconsideration of an evidentiary ruling, relied on an evidentiary rule the State had not raised, and failed to defer to the circuit court’s factual findings and credibility determinations. The dissenting justice also argues that the State’s unpreserved arguments could not support reversal. Justices Hannah and Baker joined the dissent.