Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 708
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-15-348
Opinion Delivered December 9, 2015
MICHAEL R. WOODWARD APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
SIXTEENTH DIVISION
V. [NO. 60CV-14-1873]
ARKANSAS STATE POLICE HONORABLE MORGAN E. WELCH,
COMMISSION JUDGE
APPELLEE
SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM
ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Trooper First Class Michael Woodward was found in violation of the
Arkansas State Police’s (ASP) policy concerning arrests and search and seizures. As a result,
a letter of reprimand was placed in his folder, he was transferred to Forrest City, and he was
suspended without pay for five days by Colonel Stan Witt.1 Appellant sought review from
the Arkansas State Police Commission (Commission), which found that appellant’s violation
of the policy had been established by a preponderance of the evidence. The Commission
upheld the disciplinary transfer and five days’ suspension without pay. Additionally, the
Commission imposed ten more days’ suspension without pay. Appellant appealed this
decision to the Pulaski County Circuit Court, which found that substantial evidence
1
Director of the Arkansas State Police.
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 708
supported the Commission’s findings that appellant violated the policy concerning arrests and
search and seizures. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the
Commission’s disciplinary actions. Appellant timely appeals, arguing that (1) the
Commission’s decision that appellant violated the ASP policy concerning arrests was arbitrary
and was not supported by substantial evidence, (2) the Commission’s decision that appellant
violated the ASP policy concerning search and seizures was not supported by substantial
evidence, and (3) the finding by the Command Staff Review Board (CSRB) that appellant
was evasive and not forthright with his answers when asked specific questions about the
complaint is not substantial evidence. We do not reach the merits of this appeal due to
deficiencies in the addendum.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)2 requires that the addendum to the appellant’s
brief contain copies of non-transcript documents in the record on appeal that are essential for
the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, understand the case, and decide the issues on
appeal, including exhibits such as CDs and DVDs. Here, appellant has failed to include the
video, played numerous times before the Commission and referenced by both parties in their
arguments, in his addendum. A motion for joint stipulation, which was treated as a motion
to supplement the record with the video, was granted by this court, and the record was
supplemented on September 30, 2015. However, there was no attempt to supplement the
addendum. Therefore, we direct appellant to file a supplemental addendum within seven
2
(2014).
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 708
calendar days of this opinion.3 We encourage counsel to review our rules, as well as the
record and addenda, to ensure that no other deficiencies are present.
Supplemental addendum ordered.
GRUBER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
M. Keith Wren, for appellent.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Meredith Blaise Rebsamen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(4).
3