Evans v. State, 5679
| Decision Date | 17 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5679,5679 |
| Citation | 478 S.W.2d 874,252 Ark. 335 |
| Parties | Laughter Lee EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Carpenter, Finch & McArthur, Little Rock, for appellant.
Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., by Gene O. Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Laughter Lee Evans asserts three points for reversal of his conviction of possession of stolen property. He contends that errors were committed in allowing testimony relating oral statements attributed to him, in addition to admission of his written statement, in denying his motion for verdict, and in giving an instruction to the jury regarding further consideration of the case after it reported that it had been unable to reach a verdict.
Appellant's argument on appeal is somewhat different from his objection in the trial court to the testimony about the oral statement. In a hearing on the admissibility of appellant's statements, the voluntary nature of the statements was conceded, and appellant's attorney agreed that his client's constitutional rights were protected, insofar as warnings and coercion were concerned. The objection made, after the court in a Denno hearing held the statements admissible, was that testimony about oral statements made to the officers, in addition to the written statement, should not be admitted. Appellant's attorney, who is not representing him on appeal, contended that the admission of this testimony would violate appellant's constitutional rights by attempts to show, by innuendo, appellant's knowledge that the property involved, a pistol, was stolen. This attempt to engraft a constitutional 'parol evidence rule' relating to written statements of accused persons upon the rules of evidence in criminal cases has been appropriately abandoned, and the attorney general was justified in not briefing this objection. In re Briefing of Criminal Cases, 234 Ark. 846, 354 S.W.2d 740.
The contention first made here that oral statements more comprehensive than the written statement were not shown to be admissible with sufficient clarity cannot be entertained. Nash v. State, 248 Ark. 323, 451 S.W.2d 869. However, our review of the only testimony on the subject, that of Detective Larry Starks of the Little Rock Police Department, discloses that, upon discovery from a check of police records that the pistol had been stolen, Starks advised appellant of his rights. Thereafter, Evans gave an oral statement, after which, upon the request of the officers that he do so, Evans wrote a statement, in his own handwriting. The circuit judge found that appellant had been adequately warned as to his rights, and that the contents of his statements to the officers, both oral and written, were admissible. This finding, based upon uncontradicted testimony, is not erroneous.
Appellant's second point is based upon his argument that the evidence failed to show the requisite guilty knowledge and intent on his part to constitute a violation of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41--3938 (Repl.1964) under which he was charged. Our review of the evidence satisfies us that a jury question was posed. Without detailing all the evidence, the following appears in the testimony:
The retail value of the pistol was $135, the wholesale price, $90. The weapon was in appellant's possession in a vehicle driven by him on Sixth Street near the freeway in Little Rock, three months after the weapon was stolen from Farrior's, Inc., in Little Rock, and Evans had some of the bullets for it at his home, although he contended that he took the pistol in pawn from a patron at a club of which he was part owner. In his statements to the officers, Evans said that he knew that the man he gave $40 as a loan on the pistol would never return for it, and that, while the borrower had sought only $20, Evans had told him that was not enough and gave him $40. Starks asked Evans if, by reason of paying so little for the gun, he had any idea that it might have been stolen. Evans replied that he figured it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. State, 5765
...explained to the jury, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Paschal v. State, 243 Ark. 329, 420 S.W.2d 73 (1967), Evans v. State, 252 Ark. ---, 478 S.W.2d 874 (1972). In the case at bar, the recently stolen property was found in appellant's possession. His explanation as to the circumstan......
-
Walker v. State, CR
...writing the reason for not giving the AMCI version. In regard to instructing the jury on extraneous matter we held in Evans v. State, 252 Ark. 335, 478 S.W.2d 874 (1972) An admonition to the jury as to its duty to return a verdict, without any expression of the court's opinion as to the wei......
-
Barnes v. State, CR76-234
...but the motion was denied. Thereafter, the jury, after deliberating only a short time, returned a guilty verdict. In Evans v. State, 252 Ark. 335, 478 S.W.2d 874 (1972), this Court * * * An admonition to the jury as to its duty to return a verdict, without any expression of the court's opin......
-
Lowe v. State, CR77-214
...known as the "Allen" charge which we have approved whenever the jurors have been unable to reach unanimity. See Evans v. State, 252 Ark. 335, 478 S.W.2d 874 (1972). Here, however, this instruction was offered as an original instruction and before any deliberation by the jury. The court had ......