Richard Shreck, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Hart, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent would have held that the sentencing-phase evidence concerning appellant's fantasies about snuff sex was irrelevant to the charged conspiracy and substantially more prejudicial than probative. It reasoned that sentencing evidence remains subject to the rules of admissibility and exclusion, including the prohibition on unfairly prejudicial evidence. The dissent would reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing because the improperly admitted evidence may have contributed to the maximum sentences. Justice Hart, dissenting, would have rejected the majority's conclusion that the appellant failed to show reversible prejudice.