Davis v. State, 5289
| Decision Date | 09 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5289,5289 |
| Citation | 243 Ark. 157,419 S.W.2d 125 |
| Parties | Calvin DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Kenneth Coffelt, Little Rock, for appellant.
Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The trial court, sitting without a jury, found the appellant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to three years imprisonment. For reversal it is contended that the court erred in admitting proof of an oral confession made by the accused while he was being questioned by four police officers.
At about nine o'clock on the night of February 14, 1966, a man armed with a pistol held up the clerk in a Little Rock liquor store and took about $100 in cash and a bottle of whiskey. At about midnight the North Little Rock police arrested the appellant, Calvin Davis, and his companion, George Overton, who was wanted for several robberies. Davis was then nineteen years old and had no prior criminal record. The two were riding in a pick-up truck that belonged to Davis's employer and was being driven by permission.
Overton eventually pleaded guilty to the offense now in question and to four other robberies. In the court below, however, Overton exonerated Davis of any complicity in the offense with which Davis was charged. Overton testified that he alone committed the robbery while Davis waited in the truck and that Davis knew nothing about it. Davis's testimony was to the same effect. The principal evidence connecting Davis with the crime was his asserted incustody confession, in which he admitted that he knew that Overton entered the liquor store with the intention of committing robbery.
As we have said, Overton and Davis were picked up in North Little Rock at about midnight. An hour or so later they were turned over to the Little Rock police, who questioned them separately at about two o'clock in the morning. According to the State's proof the officers warned Davis of his right to remain silent and of his right to an attorney. After having been so warned Davis at first said that he did not want to tell what had happened. The officers nevertheless continued the interrogation. Davis then said that he was willing to discuss the case but that he would rather not sign anything. The officers soon elicited the oral confession that constituted the principal evidence against Davis at the trial.
Under the ruling in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solem v. Stumes
...Moore v. State, 261 Ark. 274, 278, 551 S.W.2d 185, 187 (1977); Webb v. State, 258 Ark. 95, 522 S.W.2d 406 (1975); Davis v. State, 243 Ark. 157, 419 S.W.2d 125 (1967); People v. Brake, 191 Colo. 390, 397-399, 553 P.2d 763, 770 (1976); People v. Harris, 191 Colo. 234, 552 P.2d 10 (1976); Peop......
-
Hill v. State
...counsel, in view of the clear cut affirmative waiver. See also Childs v. State, 243 Ark. 62, 418 S.W.2d 793. Cf., however, Davis v. State, 243 Ark. 157, 419 S.W.2d 125. In anaylzing that portion of Miranda opinion, quoted above, the Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Bishop, 272 N.......
-
Sullins v. State
...counsel, in view of the clear cut affirmative waiver. See also Childs v. State, 243 Ark. 62, 418 S.W.2d 793. Cf., however, Davis v. State, 243 Ark. 157, 419 S.W.2d 125. 'In analyzing that portion of Miranda opinion, quoted above, the Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Bishop, 272 N......
-
Moore v. State
...he wishes to exercise his rights, the interrogation must cease. Webb v. State, 258 Ark. 95, 522 S.W.2d 406 (1975). Davis v. State, 243 Ark. 157, 419 S.W.2d 125 (1967). The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial consistent with this Reversed and Remanded. We agree. HARR......