Brandon Hughes v. State of Arkansas

2026-08-26

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Hughes's conviction and sentence, holding that the juror challenge was not preserved for appellate review because Hughes's counsel expressly declined to object when the trial court invited objections, and the exception permitting review of unpreserved errors applies only to flagrant and highly prejudicial errors requiring independent judicial intervention.

Brandon Hughes was convicted of negligent homicide following a guilty plea and jury sentencing in connection with a head-on collision that killed Timothy Bratton. Hughes had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.232 and cocaine metabolites in his system at the time of the accident. On appeal, Hughes argued that the trial court erred by failing to remove Juror No. 7 after the juror disclosed during the sentencing phase that he recognized victim-impact witness Kaye Bratton from their mutual employment at a hospital.

Hughes's counsel was given an explicit opportunity to object to Juror No. 7's continued service but declined to do so. The appellate court held that Hughes failed to preserve the issue for review because no contemporaneous objection was made. The court rejected Hughes's alternative argument that the trial court had an independent duty to intervene under the exception for flagrant and highly prejudicial errors, finding that Arkansas courts have consistently rejected such claims in juror bias cases absent a contemporaneous objection.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Preservation of juror challenges through contemporaneous objection
Implied bias arising from juror's prior employment connection to witness
Duty of trial court to intervene sua sponte in juror bias cases
Whether late disclosure of juror familiarity with witness constitutes misconduct

Procedural posture

Hughes appealed from his conviction and 40-year sentence for negligent homicide entered by the Garland County Circuit Court after a guilty plea and jury sentencing proceeding.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 371

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CR-25-611

BRANDON HUGHES Opinion Delivered August 26, 2026

APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

V. [NO. 26CR-24-585]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE RALPH C. OHM,

APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

Appellant Brandon Hughes appeals from his conviction on a charge of negligent

homicide following his guilty plea and a jury-sentencing proceeding. Hughes was sentenced

as a habitual offender to forty years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Division of Correction

and fined $10,000. His sole argument on appeal is that the circuit court erred in failing to

remove Juror No. 7 after the juror disclosed that he recognized victim-impact-witness Kaye

Bratton from their mutual employment at CHI St. Vincent Hospital. We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

The underlying facts are largely undisputed. Hughes pleaded guilty to negligent

homicide arising from a February 12, 2024 head-on collision on Highway 70 in Garland

County that resulted in the death of Timothy Bratton. During the sentencing proceeding,

the State presented evidence that Hughes crossed the centerline and struck Bratton’s vehicle. Hughes had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.232 and cocaine metabolites in his system

when the accident occurred.

During the sentencing phase, after the State rested, one of the jurors (Juror No. 7)

informed the court that he recognized Kaye Bratton from CHI St. Vincent Hospital, where

he worked in the maintenance department and where she had worked in the human

resources department. Juror No. 7 explained that he did not initially recognize her by name

and realized the connection only after hearing her testimony. He stated that he was

unfamiliar with the case, had never discussed it with Kaye Bratton, and could remain fair

and impartial. After questioning Juror No. 7, the circuit court specifically asked counsel

whether either side had any motions regarding that juror. Both the State and Hughes’s

counsel responded no. Juror No. 7 remained on the jury.

II. Discussion

To preserve a juror challenge for appellate review, a defendant must raise a

contemporaneous objection and obtain a ruling from the circuit court. See Lovett v. State,

2025 Ark. 100. A party may not agree with a circuit court’s ruling below and then attack that

ruling on appeal. Williams v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 560, 613 S.W.3d 759. Here, after Juror

No. 7 disclosed that he and Kaye Bratton had at one time worked for the same employer,

the circuit court specifically invited objections from counsel. Hughes’s counsel expressly

declined to make an objection. Accordingly, the issue is not preserved. See Lovett, supra.

Hughes acknowledges that there was no contemporaneous objection to Juror No. 7

remaining on the jury. However, he makes his argument pursuant to Wicks v. State, 270 Ark.

781, 606 S.W.3d 366 (1980), relying on the third exception to the contemporaneousobjection rule: This exception concerns “the circuit court’s duty to intervene, without an

objection, and correct a serious error either by an admonition to the jury or by ordering a

mistrial.” Id. at 786, 606 S.W.3d at 369. We hold that the third Wicks exception does not

apply here; rather, it applies only when an error is so flagrant and highly prejudicial that the

circuit court has an independent duty to intervene without objection. Id. Arkansas appellate

courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to invoke Wicks in cases involving alleged juror bias

or misconduct when no contemporaneous objection was made. See, e.g., Isom v. State, 356

Ark. 156, 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004); Lacy v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 224, 599 S.W.3d 661.

Hughes also submits that Juror No. 7 should have been removed for (1) his lack of

attention during voir dire; (2) his implied bias because both he and Kaye Bratton had worked

at CHI St. Vincent Hospital; and (3) his late disclosure constituting misconduct that

required removal and substitution with the alternate juror. Because we hold that Hughes’s

argument is not preserved for our review and because the third Wicks exception does not

apply, we decline to address the remainder of his arguments.

Affirmed.

TUCKER and BARRETT, JJ., agree.

Dusti Standridge, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: A. Evangeline Bacon, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.