Harris v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. CR77-173,CR77-173 |
| Citation | 262 Ark. 506,558 S.W.2d 143 |
| Parties | Johnny HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Solloway, Cronkhite & Jackson by Lanny K. Solloway, Little Rock, for appellant.
Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen. by Joyce Williams Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Upon trial by jury the appellant was found guilty of capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. For reversal he argues that the trial court should have sustained his motion to suppress evidence two pistols obtained under separate search warrants and that the State's proof, apart from the testimony of accomplices, is insufficient to support the verdict. We affirm the judgment.
On August 20, 1976, according to the State's proof, two men entered the home of Beulah Collins, robbed her of a money belt containing $200, left her tied up, and killed Joe Vinson, who was renting a room in the house. Someone, presumably the robbers, set fire to the house the next day, but Mrs. Collins was rescued by neighbors. Mrs. Collins testified that the robbers took a .22-caliber pistol and a .32-caliber pistol.
On August 24 the appellant Harris was arrested on a bad-check charge. Soon after that arrest the arresting officer saw a pistol on the floor of the car that Harris was driving. The officer obtained a search warrant and seized the pistol, which was shown by its serial number to have been the .22 that was taken from Mrs. Collins. The search of the vehicle took place at about 8:30 p.m. On the basis of that evidence the officers at once obtained a second warrant and searched Harris's apartment, finding on the person of his brother-in-law, Curtis Fryer, a .32-caliber pistol which was adequately shown to be the other gun that was taken.
The validity of the first seizure presents no real question, because the pistol might have been taken by the arresting officer under the plain-view doctrine, without a warrant. With respect to the second seizure, however, both the affidavit for the warrant and the warrant itself are challenged.
We find the affidavit sufficient, under the principles laid down in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and later cases. The affidavit contains a statement by the affiant that an informant had, before Harris's arrest on August 27, told officers that Harris was a participant in the robbery-murder that occurred on August 20. The affiant went on to say that the informant's reliability was shown by the fact that the .22-caliber revolver, serial number T523073, that was taken in the robbery was found in the vehicle that Harris was operating. The same informant reported that a sawed-off shotgun used in the robbery-murder was at Harris's home. An immediate search was called for, because evidence of the robbery-murder could be readily disposed of.
On the basis of the affidavit the magistrate was justified in finding that the informant (who testified at the trial) was reliable, because her statement about Harris's participation in the earlier crimes was shown by the seizure of the .22 to have been accurate. Hence the informant's further statement that a sawed-off shotgun used in the crimes was at Harris's home justified the issuance of a warrant for the search of that home.
As to the warrant itself, it did not recite, as required by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 13.2 (1976), that the magistrate found reasonable cause for the issuance of the warrant, that it be executed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruiz v. State
...445 (1977); Butler v. State, remanded, 261 Ark. 369, 549 S.W.2d 65 (1977), aff'd, 264 Ark. 243, 570 S.W.2d 272 (1978); Harris v. State, 262 Ark. 506, 558 S.W.2d 143 (1977); Hutcherson v. State, 262 Ark. 535, 558 S.W.2d 156 (1977); Scott v. State, rev'd 263 Ark. 669, 566 S.W.2d 737 (1978); H......
-
State v. Broadway, CR
...a violation is substantial or contrary to the federal Fourth Amendment or Art. 2, § 15, of our state constitution. Harris v. State, 262 Ark. 506, 558 S.W.2d 143 (1977); and Rules of Crim.Proc., Rule 16.2 (1977). Even so, penal statutes or rules are to be strictly construed in favor of the i......
-
Davis v. State
...that the warrant contain an express judicial finding as to why the magistrate issued the nighttime search warrant. Cf. Harris v. State, 262 Ark. 506, 558 S.W.2d 143 (1977). As such, the circuit court erred in concluding that the warrant was not in compliance with Rule 13.2, and, thus, in ap......
-
Cook v. State, CA CR 01-368.
...court declare Rodney to be an accomplice. Therefore, he waived his objection to Rodney's testimony in this regard. See Harris v. State, 262 Ark. 506, 558 S.W.2d 143 (1977) (holding issue of the sufficiency of corroborating testimony of accomplice was waived where the requirement of corrobor......