Hayes v. State, CR82-113

• Decision Date: 24 January 1983
• Docket Number: No. CR82-113,CR82-113
• Citation: 645 S.W.2d 662,278 Ark. 211
• Parties: T.J. HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 662

645 S.W.2d 662

278 Ark. 211

T.J. HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR82-113.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Jan. 24, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1983.

Jamison & Glover by Leon N. Jamison, Pine Bluff, for appellant.

Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Matthew Wood Fleming, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

ADKISSON, Chief Justice.

This is the second time that appellant, T.J. Hayes, has been convicted by a jury of the capital felony murder of his girlfriend, Catherine Carter, and a cab driver, J.W. Lunsford, and sentenced to death. On the first appeal we reversed and remanded, Hayes v. State, 274 Ark. 440, 625 S.W.2d 498 (1981). We now affirm.

At trial, the girlfriend's parents testified that on the afternoon of July 16, 1979, appellant and their daughter, who were both black, were at their home in Pine Bluff. By previous agreement with the Yellow Cab Company, a cab was to pick the daughter up for work at about 2:30 p.m each afternoon. On that particular day when the cab with a white male driver arrived, their daughter and appellant got into the cab. At approximately 2:30 p.m. that same afternoon a security officer on duty in front of the Arkansas Department of Correction Administration Building saw appellant and a black female in Yellow Cab No. 11, driven by a white male, pass by going about 20 miles per hour on Princeton Pike.

According to a statement appellant gave to the police, he told the cab driver to drive out on Princeton Pike where they stopped at an unoccupied house. All three got out, and appellant, who was armed with a .38 caliber pistol, told the cab driver to go back to town. The cab driver made a move as though he was attempting to disarm appellant, and appellant shot him twice. Appellant and the girlfriend then entered the house, where the girlfriend told him to forget her, that she did not want to see him anymore because she was interested in someone else. Appellant shot her twice. Appellant then drove the cab to Townsend Park and hid it in a wooded area.

At about 3:30 p.m. the security officer saw appellant driving the cab in which he had seen the three of them earlier. Later that day between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. appellant walked into the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and announced that he wanted to turn himself in saying, "I think I just killed by girlfriend." He then led officers of the Pine Bluff Police Department to the scene of the crime and to the place where he had hidden the cab. About 7:30 p.m. that evening, after being fully advised of his rights, he gave a statement to officers from the sheriff's office and signed a waiver form. We find sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that appellant was guilty as charged.

Appellant argues: that he was denied an impartial jury because the jury selected was "death qualified" and therefore was biased in favor of the prosecution; and that the Arkansas death penalty is unconstitutional. This court has consistently rejected each of these arguments. Coble v. State, 274 Ark. 134, 624 S.W.2d 421 (1981); Simpson v. State, 274 Ark. 188, 623 S.W.2d 200 (1981); Miller v. State, 269 Ark. 341, 605 S.W.2d 430 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1035, 101 S.Ct. 1750, 68 L.Ed.2d 232 (1981); Williams v. State, 276 Ark. 399, 635 S.W.2d 265 (1982). Collins v. State, 261 Ark. 195, 548 S.W.2d 106 (1977); Swindler v. State, 267 Ark. 418, 592 S.W.2d 91 (1979).

Appellant argues that he has not been accorded equal protection of the law in violation of the United States Constitution Amendment 14 because the speedy trial provisions of A.R.Cr.P. Rules 28.1-30.2, Ark.Stat.Ann., Vol. 4A (Repl.1977) distinguish between persons serving a term of imprisonment on another conviction while awaiting trial on the principal charge (must be brought to trial within eighteen months), and persons incarcerated as a result of the principal charge to be tried (must be brought to trial within eighteen months, but entitled to release from incarceration after nine months). We reject this argument because neither is entitled to absolute discharge until after eighteen months under Rule 30. Furthermore, appellant has failed to show any prejudice resulting from his incarceration prior to trial.

Appellant's other arguments regarding his right to a speedy trial were resolved on his first appeal, Hayes v. State, supra and will not be considered again.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs and slides which were allegedly redundant and introduced solely to inflame the jury. Even inflammatory photographs are admissible in the sound discretion of the trial court if they tend to shed light on any issue or are useful to enable a witness to better describe the objects portrayed or the jury to better understand the testimony. Sumlin v. State, 266 Ark. 709, 587 S.W.2d 571 (1979). Here, the trial court could have concluded that the photographs and slides would help the jury to understand the crime scene, the sequence of events, and the nature of the wounds inflicted. Also, a photograph is not rendered inadmissible merely because it is cumulative. Prunty v. State, 271 Ark. 77, 607 S.W.2d 374 (1980). We will not reverse the decision of the trial court unless there is a clear abuse of discretion; no such abuse has been shown here.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial when, during direct examination, a defense witness referred to the fact that appellant had been paroled:

[Mr. Jamison, Attorney for Appellant]

Q You did counsel Mr. Hayes personally on a few occasions.

[Witness Bessie Lancelin]

A Yes.

Q Just what does that entail--the counseling session?

A...