Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 191
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-16-533
Opinion Delivered March 29, 2017
KEENAN LEWIS APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
APPELLANT SEVENTH DIVISION
V. [NO. 60CR-14-2002]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BARRY SIMS, JUDGE
APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
Keenan Lewis was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offense of first-degree
murder. He was sentenced to thirty-one years in the Arkansas Department of Correction,
with an additional fifteen years for firearm enhancement. In this appeal, he raises three major
points, with several subpoints: 1) the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the State
to question Bree Hood about prior specific instances of conduct on redirect examination;
2) the trial court erred by refusing to permit Keenan to testify regarding his knowledge of
Jason Harris’s gang affiliation; and 3) there was insufficient evidence to support Keenan’s
conviction for murder in the first degree because he proved the justification of self-defense.
We are not able to address the merits of Keenan’s arguments because of deficiencies in his
brief.
Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (7) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals provides that all material parts of the transcript, i.e., information that is essential for
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 191
our court to understand the case and to decide the issues on appeal, shall be abstracted and
that references in the argument portion of the parties’ briefs to material found in the abstract
and addendum shall be followed by a reference to the page number of the abstract or
addendum at which such material may be found. It goes without saying that the abstract
references to the record must be accurate. Here, the trial objection giving rise to the second
point of appeal was not abstracted, and several of the referenced abstract pages do not track
with the corresponding record pages. Because Keenan has failed to provide us with a proper
abstract, we order rebriefing.
Keenan has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract,
brief, and addendum. We encourage appellate counsel to review our rules to ensure that no
additional deficiencies are present.
Rebriefing ordered.
HIXSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.
James Law Firm, by: William O. “Bill” James and Michael Kiel Kaiser, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
2