Hale v. State
| Decision Date | 10 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5735,5735 |
| Citation | 483 S.W.2d 228,252 Ark. 1040 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | Arthur Isaac HALE et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
James L. Sloan, Little Rock, for appellants; James A. Pate, Little Rock, of counsel.
Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., by Jay N. Tolley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The three appellants, Arthur Isaac Hale, Oren Ray Hayes, and Charles McMullen, were convicted of burglary and grand larceny and were each sentenced to 21 years imprisonment upon each charge. The State's proof showed that on January 5, 1970, they broke into the residence of R. H. Alexander and stole a collection of rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Three points for reversal are argued.
First, the trial judge refused to allow defense counsel to ask a witness for the State whether she had ever committed the crime of sodomy. In so ruling the presiding judge was under the impression that such a question might be put to a defendant, as bearing upon the issue of credibility, but that it cannot be put to any other witness. That distinction is not recognized by our cases. The question was proper and should have been permitted. Health v. State, 249 Ark. 217, 459 S.W.2d 420 (1970); Kazzee v. State, 175 Ark. 1170 (mem.), 299 S.W. 354 (1927).
Secondly, the appellant Hale contends that the court erred in allowing Officer Presley to testify to an admission made by Hale, to the effect that Hale thought that he could get the stolen property back. Officer Presley had gone to Denver, Colorado to bring Hale back to Arkansas. The officer warned Hale of his constitutional rights when he picked him up in Denver. The admission was made about an hour and a half later, in the course of a conversation between the two men as they were returning to Arkansas in an airplane.
We think the court was right in allowing the statement to be considered against Hale. Officer Presley stated the substance of the warning that he gave Hale. It was not essential that he also state affirmatively that Hale appeared to understand the warning, that being a matter that might have been developed on cross examination. Nor was it essential that the warning be repeated during the conversation on the airliner. The situation is readily distinguishable from that considered in Scott v. State, 251 Ark. ---, 475 S.W.2d 699 (1972), for there ninety days elapsed between the giving of the warning and the admission of guilt. Here the interval was only ninety minutes.
Thirdly, Hale sought to prove that on the day of the alleged burglary he was actually in jail in Brantley County,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc.
...L.Ed.2d 142; Rice v. United States, 411 F.2d 485 (8th Cir. 1969); United States v. Olivo, 278 F.2d 415 (3d Cir. 1960); Hale v. State, 252 Ark. 1040, 483 S.W.2d 228 (1972); People v. Kirtdoll, 391 Mich. 370, 217 N.W.2d 37 (1974); State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344, 178 N.W.2d 604 (1970); State......
-
Lepire v. Motor Vehicles Division
...showed that a man who identified himself as the defendant was riding in the vehicle stopped. To the same effect is Hale v. State, 252 Ark. 1040, 483 S.W.2d 228 (1972), in which the court held that a prisoner record kept in the regular course of business at a county jail was admissible as a ......
-
Reeves v. State
...the proper advise as to constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona, supra; U.S. v. Joslyn, 371 F.Supp. 423 (D.C.Ariz.1974); Hale v. State, 252 Ark. 1040, 483 S.W.2d 228; O'Neal v. State, 253 Ark. 574, 478 S.W.2d 618; Blanton v. State, 249 Ark. 181, 458 S.W.2d Certainly we cannot say that the......
-
May v. State
...of drugs. On cross-examination the credibility of a witness may be impeached by showing acts of moral turpitude. Hale v. State, 252 Ark. 1040, 483 S.W.2d 228 (1972); Heath v. State, 249 Ark. 217, 459 S.W.2d 420 (1970). Still more in point are such cases as Garrard v. State, 113 Ark. 598, 16......