ALK ] 249 Samuel L. HENDERSONv. STATEofArkansas CR01 1-299 763SWd. .857 SupremeCourt ofArkansas Opinion .deliveredJune6, 2002 APPEAL & ERROR - APPELLANTFAILEDTOCOMPLYWITHARK. SUP. CT. R. 4 2- - REVISEDORSUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFORDERED. -Whereappellant'sportionoftheabstract andaddendumaddressing hismotionfor newtrial was deficient inthat several relevant plead-ings anddocumentsessential tothe supreme courts' consideration ofthe appeal werenot containedinappellant'sabstract or addendum, appellant failedtocomplywithArk. Sup. Ct. R. 4 2-;a ppel-lant was orderedtosubmit a revisedor supplemental abstract and addendumthat contains all relevant pleadings anddocuments that areessential toan understandingoftheissues raisedonappeal. Appeal fromGarland Circuit Court; John Homer Wright, Judge; returnedtoappellant tocomplywithArk. S. Ct. R. 4 2-. Morse U. Gist, Jr.,fo r appellant. MarkPryor, Atty' Gen.,b y: JeffreyA. Weber, Ass'tAtty' Gen., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant Samuel L. Henderson appeals fromhisconvictionoffirst -d egreemurder for theshoot-ingdeathofcab driver Paul Hill, for whichHendersonwas sen-tencedtolifeinprison. Wetookthis case under submissiononJune6, 2002. Inhis appeal, Hendersonasserts as oneofhis pointsthat thetrial court erredindenyinghis motionfor newtrial, a motionbased ona claimofjuror misconduct during the trial proceedings. Upon reviewing the materials included in Henderson' abstract and addendum, it is apparent that hisfilingwasdeficient inthat several relevant pleadingsanddocumentsessential totheunderstandingof thispoint onappeal werenot containedinHenderson'sabstract or addendum. Wearedeferringactiononthisappeal until appellant fullycomplies withtheprovisions ofSupreme Court Rule4 2-.
HENDEKSONV. STATE 25 Citeas 349 Ark. 249 (2002) [ 349 Supreme Court Rule 4-b2 38()()e( xplains the procedure that we nowfollowwhenan appellant has failed to supply this court witha sufficient brief. Theruleprovides: Whether ornot theappelleehascalledattentiontodeficienciesin theappellant'sabstract or addendum, thecourt mayaddress the questionat anytime. Ifthecourt findstheabstract or addendum tobedeficient suchthat thecourt cannot reachthemeritsofthe case, or suchas tocause anunreasonable or unjust delay inthe dispositionoftheappeal, thecourt will notifythe appellant that heor she will be affordedanopportunity tocure any deficiencies, and has fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract, addendum, andbrief, at hisor her ownexpense, tocon-formtoRule4-25 (a)a(nd (7)M. eremodificationsoftheorigi-nal brief by the appellant, as by interlineation, will not be acceptedbytheclerk. Uponthefilingofsucha substitutedbrief bytheappellant, theappelleewill beaffordedanopportunityto reviseor supplement thebrief, at theexpenseoftheappellant or the appellant'scounsel, as the court may direct. If after the opportunitytocure the deficiencies, theappellant fails tofilea complyingabstract, addendum, and brief withinthe prescribed time, thejudgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance withtherule. Id. Hendersonhas failedto complywithSupreme Court Rule 4 2-. Theruleinrelevant part provides: Followingthesignature andcertificateofservice, theappellant's briefshall containanaddendumwhichshall includetrueandleg-ible photocopies of the order, judgment, decree, ruling, letter opinion, or Workers' CompensationCommission opinionfrom whichthe appeal is taken, alongwithany other relevant plead-ings, documents, or exhibitsessential toanunderstandingofthe caseandthecourts' jurisdictiononappeal. Inthecase oflengthy pleadings or documents, onlyrelevant excerpts incontext need tobeincludedintheaddendum. Dependingupontheissues on appeal, theaddendummayincludesuchmaterials as thefollow-ing: a contract, will, lease, or any other document; proffers of evidence; jury instructions or profferedjury instructions; the courts' findingsandconclusions oflaw; orders; administrativelaw judges' opinion; discovery documents; requests for admissions; andrelevant pleadings or documents essential to anunderstanding ofthe
HENDEItSONV. STATE ARK. Citeas 349Ark. 249 (2002) 251 court'sjurisdictionon appeal such as the noticeofappeal. Theadden-dumshall includeanindexofits contentsandshall alsobeclear whereanyitemappearingintheaddendumcanbefoundinthe record. The appellee may prepare a supplemental addendumif material on whichthe appellee relies is not inthe appellants' addendum. Pursuant tosubsection (c)b elow, theclerkwill refuse toaccept anappellants' briefifitsaddendumdoesnot containthe required order, judgment, decree, ruling, letter opinion, or administrativelawjudge'sopinion. Theappellee'sbriefshall only containan addendumto includeanitemwhichthe appellant's addendumfailstoinclude. Id. e(mphasis added). In the case nowbefore us, Henderson'sportion of the abstract andaddendumaddressing his motionfor newtrial con-tainsonlythetestimonyofhistwowitnessesat thehearingonthe motion. The following information, which is essential to an understandingofthisissueinthiscase, is missing: 1( )H enderson's motion for newtrial; (2) the State'sresponse to Henderson' motionfornewtrial; 3( )t heaffidavitsinsupport ofthemotionfor newtrial fromHenderson'switnesses, EricaHendersonandBob-bieConway; and (4)H enderson' noticeofappeal anddesignation of the record. The State provided a supplemental abstract that includedthe trial court'sorder denyingHenderson'smotionfor new trial. The other information missing fromHenderson' abstract andaddendumwas not mentionedby theState. 1] ReviewofHenderson' motionfor newtrial, support-ingaffidavits, andtheState'sresponseareessential toourconsider-ationof thisappeal. Specifically, a reviewof these documents is neededfor us tounderstandtheargumentsthat wereraisedbelow andthearguments that thetrial court consideredwhenit denied Henderson'smotion. Because Henderson has failed to comply withRule4 2-,w eareorderinghimtosubmit arevisedorsupple-mental abstract andaddendumthat containall relevant pleadings anddocuments that are essential toanunderstandingoftheissues raised in this appeal. Appellant must file a complying abstract, addendum, and brief withinfifteen days fromthe entry of this order. Thereafter, appelleewill have fivedays torespond. IMBER, J.,n ot participating.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.