Harrison v. State
| Decision Date | 07 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 287 Ark. 102,696 S.W.2d 501 |
| Parties | Delbert W. HARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 85-99. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Junius Bracy Cross, Jr., Little Rock, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Delbert Harrison was convicted of theft of property and the burglary of a Little Rock service station. He was sentenced to twenty years on each count, to be served consecutively. We find no merit in either point raised on appeal.
The police responded to a burglary-in-progress call at a Citgo Service Station on Roosevelt Road. On arrival they saw a person inside the station and a car speeding away. The car was found within minutes at Delbert Harrison's house. Property taken from the station was subsequently found in the car and in the yard. The car was discovered to belong to Randy Manning, the person seen inside the station. He was arrested at the scene; Delbert Harrison and Robert Strawn were arrested at Harrison's house. In a statement given that night, Harrison said that he had dropped Strawn and Manning off at the service station. He said he went back later and sat in the car while Strawn put engine heads, oil, and other property in the car. He admitted giving Strawn the keys to the trunk where more property was loaded. He contended in the statement that he never realized what was going on but that he panicked when he saw the police and drove away. The jury chose to disbelieve the appellant's version of the facts, finding Harrison guilty.
Harrison argues that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the information which charged him as a principal rather than as an accessory. That argument was rejected in Parker v. State, 265 Ark. 315, 578 S.W.2d 206 (1979). Harrison contends that the evidence could not place him in any role other than accessory. Harrison was present when property was being removed from the station and put into the car. The jury was properly instructed of the legal distinction between a principal and an accomplice; it was told that the state contended that Harrison did not act alone and that a person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when he is an accomplice. The jury was further instructed that an accomplice is one who participates in the commission of an offense or who aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid in planning or committing the offense. See AMI Criminal, 401. It was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoover v. State
...put on notice that the state plans to amend an information. Mitchell v. State, 306 Ark. 464, 816 S.W.2d 566 (1991); Harrison v. State, 287 Ark. 102, 696 S.W.2d 501 (1985); Wilson v. State, 286 Ark. 430, 692 S.W.2d 620 (1985). There was no prejudice to the appellant in allowing the trial to ......
-
Nelson v. Lockhart
...felony, Finch v. State, 262 Ark. 313, 317, 556 S.W.2d 434, 436, (1977), and not as a distinct offense, Harrison v. State, 287 Ark. 102, 104, 696 S.W.2d 501, 502 (1985). Even though the habitual offender statute merely served to enhance Nelson's sentence, however, the sentencing procedure co......
-
Smith v. State
...put on notice that the state plans to amend the information. Mitchell v. State, 306 Ark. 464, 816 S.W.2d 566 (1991); Harrison v. State, 287 Ark. 102, 696 S.W.2d 501 (1985). In this case, there is no indication that appellant knew of the intended amendment. However, when appellant objected t......
-
Traylor v. State
...did not change the nature or degree of the crime, but simply afforded evidence to increase the punishment. Harrison v. State, 287 Ark. 102, 696 S.W.2d 501 (1985); Lincoln v. State, 287 Ark. 16, 696 S.W.2d 316 (1985). Also, appellant did not ask for a continuance and did not demonstrate prej......