Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 459 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-25-524 LLOYD BARBER, JR. Opinion Delivered September 30, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ST. FRANCIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 62CR-22-49] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE E. DION WILSON, JUDGE AFFIRMED APPELLEE WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Lloyd Barber, Jr., was found guilty by a St. Francis County Circuit Court jury of second-degree murder in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-103 (Repl. 2013). He was sentenced to a thirty-year term of incarceration in the Arkansas Division of Correction. On appeal, Barber argues that the circuit court erred by reopening the case and permitting additional evidence after the case was submitted to the jury and by denying his right to challenge the new evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause. We affirm. On February 18, 2022, following the November 20, 2021, death of the victim, Everett Williams, Barber was charged by criminal information with having committed the offenses of first- degree murder and engaging in violent group activity. Before succumbing to his injuries, Williams gave a dying declaration to Forrest City Police Department Officer Thomas Harland stating that he had been shot by “BB.” Barber is known by the nickname “BB.” At trial, the State called multiple witnesses and introduced body-camera footage that captured Williams’s dying declaration. The State also introduced surveillance videos from two nearby stores, H&R Block and Little Bit of Everything, that captured the murder. A recording of Barber’s custodial interview was also admitted into evidence. During deliberations, the jury submitted a note to the court requesting another review of the H&R Block video with a zoomed-in view. Barber objected, arguing that the zoomed-in video constituted new evidence that had not been subject to cross-examination. The State responded that the jury was entitled to the requested video because it was evidence that had already been introduced. Over Barber’s objection, the court sent the jury back to the courtroom to view the video as requested. After the zoomed-in video was played, Barber renewed his objection and moved for a mistrial; his motions were denied. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. Barber appealed. Barber first argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to reopen his case and admit new evidence after the jury had retired to deliberate his guilt or innocence. We disagree. Our supreme court has held that the circuit court has discretion whether to permit a party to reopen a case either before or after the jury begins deliberating. 1 A decision to permit additional evidence to go to the jury after its retirement must be exercised sparingly and only when exigencies of the situation warrant it.2 Here, the circuit court did not reopen the case, nor did it admit new evidence. The jury asked to see an already-admitted surveillance video. Barber contends that the zoomed-in 1 Sterling v. State, 315 Ark. 598, 868 S.W.2d 490 (1994). 2 Id. 2 magnification changed the substance of the video and transformed it into new evidence that was subject to cross-examination. His argument fails. The zoomed-in footage was played from the exact same video that was previously seen by the jury. There is no argument that it was altered by outside sources or was a newly created video. The video footage was not enhanced or manipulated by forensic techniques to reveal details that were not detectable during the first viewing. The integrity of the admitted evidence remained intact and was not distorted or edited. We affirm on this point. Barber next argues that reopening his case to admit new evidence violated his right to confront and cross-examine under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 2, section 10 of the Arkansas Constitution. Because we hold that the circuit court did not reopen the case or admit new evidence, Barber’s constitutional challenges are meritless. Affirmed. HARRISON and BARRETT, JJ., agree. Robert M. “Robby” Golden, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: A. Evangeline Bacon, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 3