Dickson v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1,73--1 |
| Citation | 492 S.W.2d 895,254 Ark. 250 |
| Parties | Vedell DICKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. Cr. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Irving P. Andrews, Denver, Colo., George Howard, Jr., Pine Bluff, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by O. H. Hargraves, Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellant was charged by information with having committed an assault upon Marie Robinson, Betty Davis, and Phyliss Haynes, 'as employees of Simmons First National Bank,' with the felonious intent to rob those persons. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41--609 (Repl.1964). Dickson appeals from a verdict and judgment finding him guilty and sentencing him to imprisonment for one year.
The State proved that Dickson and a confederate, Felton Adams, planned to rob a branch bank at a shopping center in Pine Bluff. Dickson contends, however, that the plan was not actually carried far enough to constitute an assault with the intent to rob. (See Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41--1201.) That contention must be sustained.
Only two eyewitnesses to the attempted robbery testified. Felton Adams testified that on July 8, 1971, he and Dickson drove to the shopping center in Dickson's car, with the intention of robbing the bank. Dickson was to wait in the car while Adams held up the bank employees.
The bank was not yet open when Adams reached it at about 8:00 a.m. Wearing a mask and gloves and armed with a pistol, Adams concealed himself behind a hedge to await the opening of the bank. When the three tellers arrived they saw Adams and made an outcry. At that point Adams, in his own words: 'Jumped up, shot, and ran.' The shot was aimed upward and struck the roof of the bank. Adams ran back to Dickson's car, apparently firing two shots as he ran, and the two men drove away.
Marie Robinson, who alone among the three tellers was called as a witness, gave substantially the same version of the occurrence as Adams had given. Miss Robinson had waited in her car for the other two tellers to arrive. The three then walked toward the bank together. They paused to examine the hedge or shrubbery, which had turned yellow and seemed to be dying. One or both of the others saw Adams and yelled that it was a holdup. Adams jumped up, and for an instant he and Miss Robinson confronted each other. Adams shot the pistol up in the air. According to Miss Robinson: Adams ran toward a parking lot in the shopping center.
The only conclusion to be drawn from the proof it is that, although Dickson and Adams meant to rob the bank, Adams abandoned the plan and ran away when he was discovered in hiding before the bank had opened. There was no demand for money or any other conduct on Adams's part amounting to an assault upon the three women with the intention of robbing them. The judgment must therefore be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Two of the appellant's other points for reversal must be mentioned, for they may arise upon a retrial. The State was allowed to introduce a glove, two pistols, and other articles found in the course of a search of Dickson's home. The only objection in the court below--an objection not renewed on appeal--had to do with the validity of the officers' search warrant. It is now argued for the first time that some of the articles were not shown to be connected with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelton v. State
...required if the questioning by police is simply investigatory. Parker v. State, 258 Ark. 880, 529 S.W.2d 860 (1975); Dickson v. State, 254 Ark. 250, 492 S.W.2d 895 (1973). Police inquiry is purely investigatory and proper until the suspect is restrained in some significant way. Once in cust......
-
Pollard v. State
...or show that Mr. Chapman or anyone at his residence, consented to the search in which the trousers were obtained. See Dickson v. State, 254 Ark. 250, 492 S.W.2d 895 (1973). It is true that one who seeks to suppress evidence on the ground that the state violated his constitutional rights in ......
-
Parker v. State
...utterances, without others were held admissible as spontaneous utterances. The inquiry here was quite similar to that in Dickson v. State, 254 Ark. 250, 492 S.W.2d 895, where we found the answers given admissible. We find no error in the admission of appellant's answer to the inquiry made b......