FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 26CR-14-378]
HONORABLE JOHN HOMER WRIGHT, JUDGE
Law Firm, by: Michael Kiel Kaiser and William O.
"Bill" James, Jr., for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
W. GRUBER, CHIEF JUDGE
Steven Swanigan was convicted by a Garland County Circuit
Court jury of one count of first-degree murder and two counts
of first-degree battery for entering an apartment in Hot
Springs and firing multiple gunshots, killing Mayela Mata and
injuring her twenty-month-old daughter and a friend, Antouin
Bond. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 720
months' imprisonment. He raises six points for reversal;
however, we do not address the merits of appellant's
arguments because of deficiencies in the abstract and
addendum, and we order rebriefing.
Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) (2018) requires the
appellant's brief to contain an addendum consisting of
all documents in the record that are essential for the
appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, understand the
case, and decide the issues on appeal. The rule specifically
lists the following examples of required items: "docket
sheets, superseded pleadings, discovery related documents,
proffers of documentary evidence, jury instructions given or
proffered, and exhibits (such as maps, plats, photographs,
computer disks, CDs, DVDs)." Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
4-2(a)(8)(A)(i). One of appellant's points on appeal is a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him
as the perpetrator of the crimes. He also challenges the
pretrial identification of him by a Sonic employee who
testified that she saw him drive though the Sonic parking lot
minutes before the crimes occurred at an apartment down the
street from the restaurant. Included in the record as an
exhibit was a DVD of the surveillance video from Sonic taken
during that time. The record also included a DVD of the
surveillance video from the apartment complex where the
crimes occurred taken during the time of the incident.
Although appellant's addendum contains photocopies of
photographs of the envelopes containing these DVDs, it does
not include physical copies of the DVDs. We therefore order
appellant to submit a supplemental addendum that includes a
physical copy of these DVDs.
addition, one of appellant's points on appeal is that the
circuit court abused its discretion by admitting evidence in
the form of testimony and a video of a "fluid
trail" of power-steering fluid from the Cadillac that
appellant was driving at the time of the event. The trail
extends from the home of the person from whom appellant
borrowed the Cadillac to the scene of the crimes. Appellant
failed to include a copy of the DVD of the "fluid
trail" in the addendum. Because the DVD is essential for
us to understand the case and decide the issues on appeal, we
order him to include the DVD in his supplemental addendum.
Further, appellant argues on appeal that the circuit court
abused its discretion in admitting rebuttal evidence of a
three-way phone conversation between appellant, Scarlett
Shurett, and Amy Botsick regarding Amy's proposed
testimony at trial. Appellant did not include a copy of the
CD audio recording of this conversation in the addendum. We
order him to include a copy of this recording in his
pages 239-86 of appellant's abstract consists of direct
reprints of the trial transcript. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule
4-2(a)(5)(A) requires all material information recorded in a
transcript to be abstracted. A photocopy of the record is not
(B) Form. The abstract shall be an impartial
condensation, without comment or emphasis, of the transcript
(stenographically reported material). The abstract must not
reproduce the transcript verbatim. No more than one page of a
transcript shall be abstracted without giving a record page
reference. In abstracting testimony, the first person
("I") rather than the third person ("He or
She") shall be used. The question-and-answer format
shall not be used. In the extraordinary situations where a
short exchange cannot be converted to a first-person
narrative without losing important meaning, however, the
abstract may include brief quotations from the transcript.
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5)(B).
has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a
substituted brief, abstract, and addendum that complies with
our rules. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We encourage counsel
to review Rule 4-2 in its entirety as it relates to the
abstract and addendum to ensure that no additional
deficiencies are present. Finally, we are not authorizing
appellant to modify his arguments.
service of the substituted brief, abstract, and addendum, the
State shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement its
brief, due fifteen days from the date appellant files his
substituted brief. The State may choose to rely on the brief
previously filed in this appeal.
Whiteaker and ...