Roston v. State

18 Citing cases

  1. Rogers v. State

    550 S.W.3d 387 (Ark. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    This court will not address an argument, even a Sixth Amendment constitutional one, that has not been preserved. Roston v. State , 362 Ark. 408, 409, 208 S.W.3d 759, 760 (2005). His argument is limited to the admissibility under Rule 609.

  2. Gilbreth v. State

    2020 Ark. App. 86 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    Our appellate courts have repeatedly held that trial error involving the Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses is subject to a harmless-error analysis. Roston v. State , 362 Ark. 408, 208 S.W.3d 759 (2005) ; Ryan v. State , 2016 Ark. App. 105, 484 S.W.3d 689. Whether a confrontation-clause violation is harmless error depends on a variety of factors, including "the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and ... the overall strength of the prosecution’s case."

  3. Green v. State

    2015 Ark. App. 291 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 14 times
    In Green, our court affirmed the trial court's revocation decision despite its error in permitting an out-of-court statement in violation of the defendant's right to confront witnesses.

    The Arkansas Supreme Court has previously dealt with harmless error concerning a violation of the Confrontation Clause in a revocation hearing. In Roston v. State, 362 Ark. 408, 208 S.W.3d 759 (2005), the circuit court refused to allow the appellant the opportunity to question crime-lab personnel after he had demanded to do so. The court held that, despite the circuit court's violation, the error was harmless:

  4. McNeil-Lewis v. State

    2023 Ark. 54 (Ark. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Confrontation Clause violations also receive harmless-error analysis. Roston v. State, 362 Ark. 408, 410, 208 S.W.3d 759, 760 (2005) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986)). That analysis includes several factors: (i) whether the statement was important to the prosecution's case; (ii) whether the statement was cumulative; (iii) whether other testimony corroborated or contradicted the statement; (iv) whether cross-examination was otherwise extensive; and (v) whether the prosecution's case was strong overall.

  5. Owens v. State

    363 Ark. 413 (Ark. 2005)   Cited 24 times
    Rejecting an argument in an appeal of a robbery conviction that still photographs taken from videotape in an E-Z Mart's surveillance camera were not authenticated by the testimony of the victim that the photographs accurately depicted the scene at the store

    [5] As a final point, we hold that Owens's argument to this court that the playing of the videotape for the jury after the introduction of the still photographs did not allow for a proper comparison was not made to the circuit court. Hence, it is not preserved for our review. See Roston v. State, 362 Ark. 408, 208 S.W.3d 759 (2005). A review of the record for other reversible error pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h) has been made, and none has been found.

  6. Perkins v. State

    2024 Ark. App. 169 (Ark. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    We held that the error was harmless because there was other evidence that supported the revocation, rendering the out-of-court statement unnecessary. Id. at 5, 461 S.W.3d at 734; see also Roston v. State, 362 Ark. 408, 410, 208 S.W.3d 759, 761 (2005) (holding that the circuit court's violation of the Confrontation Clause was harmless error because other evidence supported the circuit court's revocation decision).

  7. McCormick v. State

    2022 Ark. App. 259 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Our appellate courts have repeatedly stated that we will not address an argument, even a constitutional one, that is raised for the first time on appeal. See Roston v. State, 362 Ark. 408, 208 S.W.3d 759 (2005); Curtis v. State, 2020 Ark.App. 352; Richard v. State, 2020 Ark.App. 492.

  8. Nichols v. State

    2021 Ark. App. 368 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Our appellate courts have repeatedly stated that we will not address an argument, even a constitutional one, that is raised for the first time on appeal. See Roston v. State, 362 Ark. 408, 208 S.W.3d 759 (2005); Curtis v. State, 2020 Ark.App. 352; Richard v. State, 2020 Ark.App. 492. Here, appellant's counsel was present during the entire proceedings.

  9. Savage v. State

    2019 Ark. App. 532 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Our supreme court has stated that it will not address an argument, even a constitutional one, that is raised for the first time on appeal. Roston v. State , 362 Ark. 408, 409, 208 S.W.3d 759, 760 (2005). At the revocation hearing, Savage objected solely on the basis of lack of foundation and failure to establish chain of custody, asserting that the case number had not been properly linked to the report from the laboratory and that Evans had no personal knowledge of the collection of the evidence or delivery to the lab.

  10. Harris v. State

    2018 Ark. App. 520 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times
    In Harris, we held, "[C]onsidering that appellant did not contend that the evidence was contaminated, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the swabs and rape kit."

    A Confrontation-Clause violation is subject to harmless-error analysis. Roston v. State , 362 Ark. 408, 208 S.W.3d 759 (2005). Whether a Confrontation-Clause violation constitutes harmless error depends on a variety of factors, including (1) the importance of the witness's testimony in the prosecution's case, (2) whether the testimony was cumulative, (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, (4) the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and (5) the overall strength of the prosecution's case.