Counsel Amended September 12, 2014.
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. CR-2012-67. HONORABLE RANDY F. PHILHOURS, JUDGE.
Gary Shaun Hair, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Rachel H. Kemp, Ass't Att'y Gen., and Lindsay Bridges, Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court under the supervision of Darnisa Evans Johnson, Deputy Att'y Gen., for appellee.
HARRISON and WOOD, JJ., agree.
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge.
Robert Turner was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of residential burglary. He contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a portion of a 911 dispatch log into evidence over his relevancy objection. The log reflects telephone calls about a " shooting and robbery . . . in house" in Gilmore, Arkansas, the
night of February 8, 2011. The following information was typed into the log by a dispatcher at the Crittenden County Sheriff's Office at the time he received the calls:
Someone shot, Darren Chance, 266 Menesha, Gilmore . .., Robert Turner, 30Y, B/M, 140, 5'06', white/Chev/Impala two door car headed toward Lepanto . . . . Tyronza notified to be on lookout for the vehicle and the Robert Turner subject that he was in a white Chevrolet poss in route back to Lepanto. She called back and wanted to know if the Turner subject was a Sr or Jr. He was the Jr.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to allow the admission of this evidence.
Before turning to the merits of this case, we make the following observations about the briefs before us. The State's brief includes a supplemental addendum reproducing the page of the dispatch log at issue as well as a supplemental abstract of testimony by three witnesses: victim Darren Chance, a second victim, and a law-enforcement officer who conducted a photo lineup. These items are essential to our understanding of the issues on appeal, and appellant's abstract and addendum is deficient because it lacks them. See Ark. S.Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5), (8) (2013). Furthermore, appellant's statement of the case is barely sufficient to assist us in understanding the nature of the case and general fact situation, and it lacks " page references to the abstract or addendum or both." Ark. S.Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) (2013). The deficiencies of appellant's brief are such that, were it not for supplementation by the State, we would have been unable to reach the merits of this appeal and would have ordered rebriefing. See Ark. S.Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2013).
Admission of the Dispatch Log into Evidence
Matters pertaining to the admissibility of evidence and rulings on relevancy are left to the trial court's sound discretion. Sipe v. State, 2012 Ark.App. 261, 404 S.W.3d 164. We will not reverse a trial court's evidentiary ruling absent an abuse of that discretion and a showing of prejudice. Id. Abuse of discretion is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the trial court's decision, ...