Grooms v. State, 5597
| Decision Date | 08 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5597,5597 |
| Citation | 251 Ark. 374,472 S.W.2d 724 |
| Parties | William GROOMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Harold C. Rains, Jr., Van Buren, for appellant.
Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., Garner L. Taylor, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of the alleged crimes of burglary and grand larceny and his punishment was left to the court. The court imposed a sentence of 10 years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for burglary and suspended a 15-year sentence for grand larceny. A codefendant who received a 5-year and a 10-year sentence (the latter suspended) does not appeal.
Appellant contends for reversal, through his court-appointed trial counsel that the court erred in allowing the cross-implicating confession of appellant's codefendant to be narrated to the jury. In this narration the jury was told that the declarant admitted in detail the alleged offenses and equally cross-implicated the appellant. Neither the declarant nor the appellant testified. We hold that the admission of the cross-implicating confession was prejudicial error. Mosby & Williamson v. State, 246 Ark. 963, 440 S.W.2d 230 (1969); Byrd, James & Strickland v. State, 251 Ark. ---, 471 S.W.2d 350 (1971). See, also, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). In those cases it was recognized that, in the circumstances, it was not longer permissible to allow cross-implicating confessions in a joint trial. This procedure impinges upon the basic and fundamental right of a defendant to be confronted from the witness stand by his adverse witness with the accompanying right of cross-examination as is guaranteed by the federal Sixth Amendment. Neither could the prejudicial effect of a violation of this constitutional right be removed by a cautionary instruction to the jury that it should not consider as evidence the admission of a confessor against a codefendant. It was further recognized in those cases that the problems which might arise from cross-implicating admissions could be resolved by deleting offending portions which refer to a codefendant. Otherwise, the court should grant separate trials.
We cannot agree with the State that a waiver of this basic constitutional right existed in the case at bar. A Denno hearing was held in chambers to determine the voluntariness of appellant's codefendant's (Kenneth Harness) confession. The court held it was voluntary and in doing so, the following transpired:
Mr. Rains: If the court please, any statement that Harness made will not be admissible against Mr. Groom.
The Court: Now, that is correct. The Court understands that any statement made was made by Harness.
In spite of this understanding, the State proceeded to present to the jury the codefendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoover v. State, CR-77-187
...we should state that Kerr v. State, 256 Ark. 738, 512 S.W. 13, cert. den., 419 U.S. 1110, 95 S.Ct. 783, 42 L.Ed.2d 806; Grooms v. State, 251 Ark. 374, 472 S.W.2d 724, the only authorities cited by appellant, are totally inapposite. They relate only to the right of an accused to cross-examin......
-
Stewart v. State
...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 bar, as indicated, the codefendant's name in ......
-
Patrick v. State, CR
...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 (1971). Because of a possible second trial we treat one other point. That concerns the introduction by the State of some dollar bills,......
-
Hicks v. State
...considered by the trial judge as to Hicks. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Grooms v. State, 251 Ark. 374, 472 S.W.2d 724. The fact that the case was tried before a judge without a jury does not affect the rule. See Hickey v. State, 263 Ark. 809, ......