A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-313 (Crime Lab reports): Provides that crime lab records—including autopsy reports—are admissible as “competent evidence” when “duly attested to by the Director of the State Crime Laboratory or his or her assistants, associates, or deputies.” The opinion quotes this standard and holds mere signatures are insufficient. Note: The opinion momentarily refers to § 12-12-312(a), but the discussion and context align with § 12-12-313.
• Nard v. State, 304 Ark. 159, 801 S.W.2d 634 (1990): Defines “attest” as an official certification or declaration of truth. The court relies on Nard to hold that a preparer’s signature alone does not satisfy the attestation contemplated by the statute.
• Sauerwin v. State, 363 Ark. 324, 214 S.W.3d 266 (2005): No prejudice where cause of death was not disputed; supports a harmless-error finding when autopsy-related testimony is cumulative or nonessential.
• Lewis v. State, 2023 Ark. 12; Proctor v. State, 349 Ark. 648, 79 S.W.3d 370 (2002); Lawson v. State, 2024 Ark. 143, 697 S.W.3d 529: Establish Arkansas harmless-error principles for evidentiary rulings—reversal requires prejudice; hearsay error can be harmless; an error is harmless when evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error slight.
• McNeil-Lewis v. State, 2023 Ark. 54, 661 S.W.3d 195: Confrontation Clause violations are subject to harmless-error analysis; lists factors including importance, cumulativeness, corroboration, scope of other cross-examination, and overall case strength.
• Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986): U.S. Supreme Court standard for Confrontation Clause harmlessness—error must be harmless “beyond a reasonable doubt,” considering a host of factors.
• Accomplice liability: Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, 588 S.W.3d 1; Cook v. State, 350 Ark. 398, 86 S.W.3d 916 (2002); Hatcher v. State, 2011 Ark. 325: No distinction between principal and accomplice for liability; one cannot escape liability by not performing each element of the offense when acting in concert. The concurrence also cites Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-403(b)(2) (Repl. 2024).
• Allocution: Goff v. State, 341 Ark. 567, 19 S.W.3d 579 (2000): Failure to provide allocution can be reversible error, but not if unpreserved (no objection).
• Short report preservation: Woods v. State, 323 Ark. 605, 916 S.W.2d 728 (1996): Defects in forms required by law to accompany the judgment must be raised in the trial court. The court ties this to a 30-day window to move to correct under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.3.
• Ark. Code Ann. § 12-27-113(c): Requires prosecutors to prepare—and the sentencing judge to approve—a “report on the circumstances attending the offense,” including aggravating and extenuating factors, to accompany commitment papers.
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-106(b): Codifies a defendant’s right of allocution at sentencing.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) Crime Lab Autopsy Report: Attestation and Harmless Error

The State sought to admit the autopsy report after the medical examiner (Dr. Adam Craig) became unavailable due to COVID-19. The circuit court treated Fort’s failure to subpoena a lab witness or file notice of cross-examination as a waiver, admitted the report under section 12-12-313, and ruled it self-authenticating.

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding the admission was an abuse of discretion: autopsy reports are only admissible under section 12-12-313 when “duly attested” by the State Crime Lab’s director or his/her assistants, associates, or deputies. Relying on Nard’s definition of “attest,” the court concluded that signatures on the report, without more, do not meet the requirement. In short, a defendant’s failure to demand live testimony does not cure the State’s failure to satisfy the statute’s attestation condition for admissibility.

Nonetheless, the court found the error harmless. The cause of death—multiple gunshot wounds—was undisputed and cumulative of other testimony (first responders and officers). Critically, under accomplice liability, the State did not need to prove the identity of the specific bullet that killed Bruce. The evidence showed Fort acted in concert with Walker and fired multiple .40-caliber shots into Bruce as he lay on the ground. Video corroboration, eyewitness testimony (Patrick Ross), and physical evidence (casings and bullets) provided overwhelming proof of guilt.

The majority also noted that, even assuming a Confrontation Clause violation, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of these circumstances. The concurrence would have explicitly conducted that constitutional harmless-error analysis as a separate step, applying Van Arsdall’s factors.

2) Right of Allocution

Section 16-90-106(b) requires the court to ask a defendant whether there is any legal cause why judgment should not be pronounced. The record reflects Fort was not offered allocution. However, under Goff and Arkansas preservation principles, the issue is not reversible absent a contemporaneous objection. Fort made no such objection; thus, the claim was unpreserved and rejected.

3) Prosecutor’s “Short Report of Circumstances”

Section 12-27-113(c) mandates that, upon commitment, the prisoner’s papers include a prosecutor-prepared report detailing the offense’s circumstances and any aggravating or extenuating factors, approved by the sentencing judge. Fort challenged the report’s content and lack of judicial approval, but he did not raise this objection in the circuit court.

Relying on Woods, the court ruled that defects in statutorily required forms accompanying the judgment must be addressed first in the trial court. The court further emphasized that Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.3 gives defendants 30 days after judgment to move to correct such defects. Because Fort did not do so, the claim was unpreserved.

C. The Concurrence: Distinct Harmless-Error Frameworks

Justice Bronni concurred to highlight the doctrinal distinction between:

• State evidentiary harmless error (was the error harmless?), and
• Federal Confrontation Clause harmless error (was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?).

Applying Van Arsdall’s factors separately, the concurrence found any Confrontation Clause error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because, even if cross-examination established that Fort did not fire the fatal bullet, the accomplice-liability theory made that fact immaterial to guilt. The State needed to show only that Fort attempted to aid and did aid the conduct causing the result, which the evidence did.

D. Impact and Practical Implications

1) Evidence and Trial Practice

• Attestation is a prerequisite. Crime Lab autopsy reports are not self-authenticating unless “duly attested” by the director or authorized delegates under § 12-12-313. A preparer’s signature alone is insufficient. Prosecutors should ensure the attestation accompanies the report or be prepared to call a qualified medical examiner or custodian witness.
• Notice-and-demand does not replace attestation. A defendant’s failure to subpoena a lab witness or file a cross-examination notice does not cure the State’s failure to satisfy the statute’s attestation requirement.
• Confrontation Clause caution. The court assumed—without deciding—that admitting an unauthenticated report without the preparer’s testimony might raise Confrontation Clause concerns. Trial courts should avoid the issue by either obtaining proper attestation and compliance with notice-and-demand procedures or presenting live testimony.
• Accomplice-liability trials. In cases where accomplice liability is clear and the cause of death is undisputed, errors involving autopsy reports are more likely to be deemed harmless. However, in cases where cause-of-death details are contested or where forensic conclusions are central to identity or intent, such errors may not be harmless.

2) Preservation and Post-Judgment Practice

• Allocution must be requested if omitted. Defense counsel should object on the record if the court fails to invite allocution at sentencing; otherwise, the claim is forfeited.
• “Short report of circumstances” challenges belong in the trial court. Defects must be raised below. The court explicitly notes that defendants have 30 days under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.3 to move to correct such defects post-judgment. This provides a clear procedural path to preserve the issue.

3) Appellate Standards Clarified

• Differentiating harmless-error inquiries. The concurrence encourages separate analyses for state evidentiary errors and Confrontation Clause errors. Practitioners should brief both standards distinctly: the “overwhelming evidence/slight error” test for state-law evidentiary issues, and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test for federal constitutional errors (Van Arsdall).

E. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Attestation (for Crime Lab reports): An official certification, by the lab director or specified delegates, that the report is what it purports to be. It is more than the preparer’s signature; it is a formal, authorized verification that allows the report to be admitted as “competent evidence” despite being hearsay.
• Self-authentication vs. Hearsay: Self-authentication means a document can be admitted without a sponsoring witness. Section 12-12-313 creates a statutory path for self-authentication of Crime Lab records, but only if the attestation requirement is met. Even then, Confrontation Clause considerations may apply.
• Confrontation Clause: The Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses generally requires that testimonial statements be subject to cross-examination. Some statutory “notice-and-demand” frameworks allow written reports to be admitted if the defense does not request cross-examination, but constitutional adequacy depends on circumstances and compliance with procedures.
• Harmless error (state evidentiary): An evidentiary error that does not warrant reversal, typically because the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error is slight or cumulative.
• Harmless error (Confrontation Clause): Even if a Confrontation Clause violation occurred, the conviction stands if the State proves the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under factors including importance, cumulativeness, corroboration, extent of other cross-examination, and the overall strength of the case.
• Allocution: The defendant’s right at sentencing to be asked if there is any legal reason the sentence should not be imposed and to speak before sentence is pronounced. In Arkansas, failure to offer allocution requires reversal only if timely objected to.
• Prosecutor’s short report of circumstances: A brief report by the prosecutor, approved by the sentencing judge, summarizing the offense and any aggravating or extenuating factors. It must accompany commitment papers to the Division of Correction. Challenges to its content or approval must be raised in the circuit court, including via a motion to correct within 30 days under Rule 33.3.
• Accomplice liability: When two people assist each other in committing a crime, each is liable for the acts of both. In a homicide, the State need not prove which specific bullet caused death if both actors intentionally participated in the conduct causing the result.