Byrd v. State, 5609
| Decision Date | 11 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5609,5609 |
| Citation | 471 S.W.2d 350,251 Ark. 149 |
| Parties | Arthur BYRD at al., Appellants, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Reinberger, Eilbott, Smith & Staten, Pine Bluff, for appellant james.
W. Harold Flowers, Pine Bluff, for appellant Byrd.
Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Crank, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellants were charged with the crime of robbery. Upon a joint trial a jury found each appellant guilty and assessed James' punishment at 3 years, Strickland 7 years, and Byrd 5 years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. From the judgments on those verdicts comes this appeal.
For reversal it is contended that it was error for the court to admit into evidence cross-implicating confessions and, further, the trial court erred by refusing to give appellants' requested cautionary instructions that any reference in a confession by one codefendant to another codefendant should not be considered by the jury.
The written confessions of appellants James and Strickland, neither of whom testified, were admitted into evidence. These confessions were cross-implicating as to each declarant and, also, as to appellant Byrd who testified and denied any complicity in the alleged crime. In the case of Mosby & Williamson v. State, 246 Ark. 963, 440 S.W.2d 230 (1969), we held that it was prejudicial error to allow cross-implicating confessions in a joint trial, as in the case at bar, since this is violative of the basic right to be confronted by an adverse witness with the accompanying right of cross-examination as is guaranteed by the federal Sixth Amendment. Further, this resulting prejudice could not be removed by a cautionary instruction to the jury that the admission of one declarant could not be considered as evidence against a codefendant. There we also said that the answer to the problem of cross-implicating admissions would be to delete any of the offending protions with reference to a codefendant, if a deletion is feasible and could be done without prejudice, or to grant separate trials. See, also, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) and Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968).
Reversed and remanded as to each appellant.
HARRIS, C.J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. State
...or to grant separate trials. The progeny of that case is Miller v. State, 250 Ark. 199, 464 S.W.2d 594 (1971); Byrd v. State, 251 Ark. 149, 471 S.W.2d 350 (1971); Grooms v. State, 251 Ark. 374, 472 S.W.2d 724 (1971); and Patrick v. State, 255 Ark. 10, 498 S.W.2d 337 (1973). In the case at b......
-
Gammel v. State, CR
...statement referring to a codefendant would meet the Bruton test, if it could be done without prejudice to the codefendant. Byrd v. State, 251 Ark. 149, 471 S.W.2d 350; Mosby v. State, 246 Ark. 963, 440 S.W.2d 230. Deletion of references to the codefendant is sufficient. Miller v. State, 250......
-
Hickey v. State
...presumption should not be applicable. I am authorized to state that HICKMAN, J., joins in this opinion. 1 See: Byrd, et al. v. State, 251 Ark. 149, 471 S.W.2d 350 (1971) where we held that where a cross-implicating confession in a joint trial is prejudicial to one of the co-defendants, the ......
-
Patrick v. State, CR
...if such deletion is feasible and can be done without prejudice, or to grant separate trials. To the same effect see Byrd et al. v. State, 251 Ark. 149, 471 S.W.2d 350 (1971); Grooms v. State, 251 Ark. 374, 472 S.W.2d 724 Because of a possible second trial we treat one other point. That conc......