Martin v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Bragg v. State

    2023 Ark. 66 (Ark. 2023)   Cited 7 times

    The writ is only available to address (1) insanity at the time of trial; (2) a coerced guilty plea; (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor; (4) a third-party confession made during the time between conviction and appeal, or (5) faulty hair-comparison analysis. Martin v. State, 2018 Ark. 344, at 4, 7-8; see also McKinney v. State, 2020 Ark. 226, at 2 n.1, 602 S.W.3d 85, 87 n.1 (recognizing the fifth ground for coram nobis relief as "repudiated expert testimony"). In order to succeed on a claim that the prosecutor withheld material evidence, Bragg was required to demonstrate that (1) the evidence at issue was favorable to him, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued.

  2. Johnson v. State

    2019 Ark. 176 (Ark. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    The writ is issued only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Id. These errors fall into one of four categories: (1) insanity at the time of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or (4) a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Martin v. State, 2018 Ark. 344. Finally, the writ is only granted to correct some error of fact. Mosley v. State, 2019 Ark. 14. It does not lie to correct trial error or to contradict any fact already adjudicated. Id.