# McCoy Farms, Inc. v. J & M McKEE > Supreme Court of Arkansas · March 6, 1978 · 263 Ark. 20 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778174 ## Case - **Full name:** McCOY FARMS, INC. Et Al v. J & M McKEE Et Al - **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas - **Decided:** March 6, 1978 - **Citations:** 263 Ark. 20; 563 S.W.2d 409; 1978 Ark. LEXIS 1944 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Harris - **Judges:** Fogleman, Harris, Hickman, Howard - **Cited by:** 50 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778174 ## Opinion text Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. My dissent is based on the fact that the trial court excluded appellants’ Arkansas attorney from the courtroom on motion of appellees’ attorney, and, further, excluded relevant evidence. These two matters will be discussed together. Indeed, the majority itself finds both rulings to be erroneous. There is no point in my setting out why the former ruling was an abuse of discretion since the majority concede that this action by the court constituted error; however, the majority go on to say that the error was not prejudicial, and I suppose this is based on the fact that out of state counsel, T. H. Freeland, III, of Oxford, Mississippi, proceeded with the case. I do not see how this finding of no prejudice is so clear. Case after case holds that where this court finds error, unless such error is clearly not prejudicial, we reverse; or to state it another way, where error is shown, it is presumed that such is prejudicial unless it affirmatively appears otherwise. Ark. State Highway Commission v. Spence, 254 Ark. 423 , 494 S.W. 2d 469 . There are dozens of cases to the same effect. Of course, the word “affirmatively” means that the burden is on the party, who benefited from the error, to establish clearly that there was no prejudice. I cannot agree that this has been done. In the first place, there is no way of knowing how the Arkansas attorney would have handled matters had he been participating. For instance, he might have been able to persuade the court that the evidence heretofore mentioned, consisting of documents and testimony offered by appellants to show facts and circumstances relating to the note and mortgage and their execution, was pertinent and relevant 1 — a fact which the majority concede. This testimony was excluded by the trial court, but the majority say, in effect, that that really makes no difference since “we consider all such proffered evidence on trial de novo. ” While this has been done in the majority of cases, I think it is also true that in most of these cases the trial court heard the proffer and simply held such evidence inadmissible. In the instant case, according to the record, the chancellor left the courtroom and returned to chambers, 2 appellants making their proffer in his absence, and he did not return to the courtroom until the proffer of evidence had been concluded. Accordingly, he did not know what specific evidence was being tendered. I certainly cannot say that his decision would have been exactly the same had this evidence been accepted — perhaps so — perhaps not, but at any rate, the trial court should have, in my view, the opportunity to hear, and consider, the evidence which the majority admit was entirely admissible. This lawsuit involved quite a bit of money and appellants had employed an Arkansas attorney to assist in their representation; 3 yet, this attorney, for no valid legal reason, was prohibited from rendering the service for which he had been employed. The Mississippi counsel then immediately moved for a continuance in order that he might employ some other member of the Arkansas Bar, but this was refused. Since I consider the exclusion of Mr. Gaughan to have constituted prejudicial error, certainly I also consider it prejudicial error to refuse to grant the continuance. There was no reason in advance for out of state counsel to feel that Mr. Gaughan would not be able to participate, since the latter attorney would not be called for appellants, and Freeland was thus left helpless other than to proceed to trial himself. I know that I would personally dislike going to a sister state, where rules of procedure and evidence may well differ from that in Arkansas, to try a case without the help of an attorney of that locality. Let us remember that a trial should not only be fair (and I do not question the fair-mindedness of the chancellor whom I consider to be a conscientious jurist), but the trial should also have every appearance of fairness, and I can certainly see where appellants could feel that they were mistreated when the Arkansas attorney that had been employed was prohibited from engaging in the trial, and they were further denied the opportunity to obtain other counsel licensed in this state. It is my view that this court, having found that the exclusion of the testimony herein mentioned was error, and having found that the Arkansas attorney was improperly excluded, should remand this casé for further proceedings. Hickman, J., joins in this dissent. Another of the justices has pointed out in a dissent a couple of instances where the Mississippi attorney needed advice on procedural points. The court had excluded the evidence on the basis that any occurrences prior to the compromise settlement were irrelevant and not material to the cause of action. Some trial courts even-require that a non-resident attorney associate a lawyer residing and admitted to practice in the State'of Arkansas with him in the litigation. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778174. Public record. Not legal advice.