IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS

STATE OF ARKANSAS  PLAINTIFF

VS.   NO: CR-93-450

CHARLES JASON BALDWIN  DEFENDANT


          RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

     Comes now the State of Arkansas, by and through its duly elected Prosecuting Attorney, Brent Davis, by his duly appointed Prosecuting Attorney, John N. Fogleman, and for its response to defendant's Motion for New Trial, states:

     (1)  The allegations of paragraph 1 of the Motion for New Trial are admitted.

     (2)  The allegations of paragraphs 2 and 3 are denied except as specifically admitted herein.  It is admitted that the Court, on numerous occasions, denied Charles Jason Baldwin's Motion for Severance, but it is denied that the Court's denial of that Motion constituted an abuse of discretion, nor did it deny the defendant Baldwin a fair trial.  It denies that the Prosecuting Attorney's Office was guilty of misconduct by virtue of the Court informing the State of its ruling, and the State affirmatively states that the events of March 17, 1994, in regard to this communication to the State by the Court are more accurately reflected in Affidavits which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits "A" and "B".  The State denies that it is aware of any information about threats being made to jurors and a record has previously been made on this issue, Motion for Mistrial having been made and denied. 

     (3)  The State, pleading further affirmatively, states that even if the allegations of the defendant were considered admitted (and the State vehemently denies the allegations made by the defendant in his Motion for New Trial), the defendant has not alleged that any prejudice occurred nor has the defendant shown that any prejudice would have occurred and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that no grounds have been stated which would justify the granting of a new trial.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the State of Arkansas prays that the Court enter an Order dismissing the Motion for New Trial, and for all other proper relief to which it may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

STATE OF ARKANSAS, PLAINTIFF

BY AND THROUGH ITS DULY ELECTED
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, BRENT DAVIS

By John N. Fogleman (signed)
     John N. Fogleman, Bar # 81056
     Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
     108 Dover Road, P. O. Box 1666
     West Memphis, Arkansas 72303
     (501) 735-2571

          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Motion for New Trial was served upon the defendants herein by mailing such copy to their attorneys of record, addressed as follows:

 

Mr. Paul N. Ford
Attorney at Law
702 North Missouri
West Memphis, Arkansas 72301

Mr. Val Price
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 3072
Jonesboro, Arkansas 72403

postage prepaid, on this 12th day of April, 1994.

John N. Fogleman (signed)
John N. Fogleman

STAMPED
FILED
APR 12 1994
11:30 A.M.
PAT FLEETWOOD
CIRCUIT & CHANCERY COURT CLERK




[EXHIBIT "A"]

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS

 

STATE OF ARKANSAS  PLAINTIFF

 

VS.   NO: CR-93-450

 

CHARLES JASON BALDWIN  DEFENDANT

 

          AFFIDAVIT OF BRENT DAVIS

 

STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF CRITTENDEN

 

Comes now the affiant, Brent Davis, and after being duly sworn, states as follows:

     (1) I am a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of Arkansas.  I am the duly elected Prosecuting Attorney of the Second Judicial District to represent the State of Arkansas in this matter now pending before the Court.

     (2) It is my recollection that on March 11, 1994, prior to the State resting its case, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office advised defense counsel that, on the previous evening, it had discovered the possibility that blood was present on a necklace worn by separate defendant Damien Wayne Echols at the time of his arrest and that the necklace had been sent to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory.  The Prosecuting Attorney's Office further advised defense counsel at that time that the serologist from the State Crime Laboratory, Kermit Channell, had informed the State that there was blood on the necklace and, at the State's request, he would send the necklace to Genetic Design for further testing to determine whether there was any evidentiary value of the blood

EXHIBIT "A"
[000514]


found thereon.  This information was made known to the defense and to the Court prior to the State resting.

     (3) On the afternoon of March 15, 1994, after Court had recessed for the day, the State was informed at approximately 4:30 p.m. by representatives of Genetic Design in North Carolina that they had received a result which would be consistent with the blood of both the defendant Charles Jason Baldwin and the victim Steve Branch.  The representatives of Genetic Design informed the State that they could conduct an additional test to try to determine which person the blood came from.  Thereafter, the State attempted to contact the attorneys for each defendant to notify them of this development and to discuss a possible one-day continuance in the matter.  After unsuccessfully attempting to contact the attorneys for each defendant, the Court was contacted because of the problem of notification of the jury in the event a continuance was granted.

     (4) On March 17, 1994, the Court reconvened and, at that time, the State advised the Court of the results, having previously advised defense counsel of the test results.  It is my recollection that an in-camera off-the-record hearing was held in chambers wherein defense attorneys for both defendants, the prosecutors, and the Judge were present.  The Judge stated at that time that he was inclined to grant the Motion for Mistrial as to the defendant Baldwin and to sever the cases if the new evidence was allowed in.  A hearing was conducted before the Court as a result of the defense objections to the introduction

[000515]


of said evidence, and after arguments of counsel, the Court declared a recess prior to making his ruling.

     (5) During the recess, the Court summoned the attorneys for the State and informed them of his ruling.  As the Court was informing the representatives of the State of his ruling, the attorneys for the defendant Baldwin entered the room, at which time the Court completed stating his ruling.  No actual conversation or discussion took place other than the Court advising the attorneys for the State of his ruling.  Attorneys for the defendant Baldwin were aware of the circumstances of the Court informing the attorneys for the State of his ruling and had an opportunity to make a record if they objected to this procedure and declined to do so.

Further affiant sayeth not.

DATED this 12th day of April, 1994.

Brent Davis (signed)
Brent Davis

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of April, 1994.

Vivian Bray (signed)
Notary Public

STAMPED
OFFICIAL SEAL
VIVIAN V. BRAY
NOTARY PUBLIC - ARKANSAS
CRAIGHEAD COUNTY
My Commission Expires:
3-1-2001




[EXHIBIT "B"]

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS

STATE OF ARKANSAS  PLAINTIFF

VS.   NO: CR-93-450

CHARLES JASON BALDWIN  DEFENDANT

          AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN N. FOGLEMAN

STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF CRITTENDEN

Comes now the affiant, John N. Fogleman, and after being duly sworn, states as follows:

     (1) I am a licensed and practicing attorney in the State of Arkansas.  I was duly appointed as Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to represent the State of Arkansas in this matter now pending before the Court

     (2) It is my recollection that on March 11, 1994, prior to the State resting its case, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office advised defense counsel that, on the previous evening, it had discovered the possibility that blood was present on a necklace worn by separate defendant Damien Wayne Echols at the time of his arrest and that the necklace had been sent to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory.  The Prosecuting Attorney's Office further advised defense counsel at that time that the serologist from the State Crime Laboratory, Kermit Channell, had informed the State that there was blood on the necklace and, at the State's request, he would send the necklace to Genetic Design for further testing to determine whether there was any evidentiary value of the blood

EXHIBIT "B"
[000517]


found thereon.  This information was made known to the defense and to the Court prior to the State resting.

     (3) On the afternoon of March 15, 1994, after Court had recessed for the day, the State was informed at approximately 4:30 p.m. by representatives of Genetic Design in North Carolina that they had received a result which would be consistent with the blood of both the defendant Charles Jason Baldwin and the victim Steve Branch.  The representatives of Genetic Design informed the State that they could conduct an additional test to try to determine which person the blood came from.  Thereafter, the State attempted to contact the attorneys for each defendant to notify them of this development and to discuss a possible one-day continuance in the matter  After unsuccessfully attempting to contact the attorneys for each defendant, the Court was contacted because of the problem of notification of the jury in the event a continuance was granted.

     (4) On March 17, 1994, the Court reconvened and, at that time, the State advised the Court of the results, having previously advised defense counsel of the test results.  It is my recollection that an in-camera off-the-record hearing was held in chambers wherein defense attorneys for both defendants, the prosecutors, and the Judge were present.  The Judge stated at that time that he was inclined to grant the Motion for Mistrial as to the defendant Baldwin and to sever the cases if the new evidence was allowed in.  A hearing was conducted before the Court as a result of the defense objections to the introduction

[000518]


of said evidence, and after arguments of counsel, the Court declared a recess prior to making his ruling.

     (5) During the recess, the Court summoned the attorneys for the State and informed them of his ruling.  As the Court was informing the representatives of the State of his ruling, the attorneys for the defendant Baldwin entered the room, at which time the Court completed stating his ruling.  No actual conversation or discussion took place other than the Court advising the attorneys for the State of his ruling.  Attorneys for the defendant Baldwin were aware of the circumstances of the Court informing the attorneys for the State of his ruling and had an opportunity to make a record if they objected to this procedure and declined to do so

Further affiant sayeth not.

DATED this 5th day of April, 1994.

John N. Fogleman (signed)
John N. Fogleman

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of April, 1994.

Jeanie M. Powers (signed)
Notary Public

STAMPED
JEANIE M. POWERS
NOTARY PUBLIC
CRITTENDEN COUNTY, AR

 

My Commission Expires:
6/10/2003