Johnson v. State, 5461
| Decision Date | 02 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5461,5461 |
| Citation | 450 S.W.2d 564,248 Ark. 184 |
| Parties | Roy Raymond JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Harold L. King, Little Rock, for appellant.
Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant was sentenced in 1963 to life imprisonment for the crime of rape. Pursuant to our Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 appellant, through court appointed counsel, has now petitioned the trial court to vacate his life sentence. In written findings of fact and conclusions of law the court denied the petition.
Appellant contends that his incriminating oral admissions were involuntary and, therefore, were inadmissible in evidence. Appellant testified that his admissions were coerced by physical abuse from some of the arresting officers who told him that he must confess, 'whether I did it or not.' He claims that he was held four or five days before he confessed and was denied the use of a telephone to call counsel. Appellant maintains he did not commit the alleged offense. The state presented evidence that appellant was arrested at approximately 1 a.m. on October 25, 1962 and placed in the city jail. At approximately 3 p.m. that day the case was assigned to two officers when they reported for duty. According to them, they spent the afternoon investigating the case which included interrogating appellant who denied any complicity in the alleged offense. With consent of appellant and his accomplice, the officers spent several hours searching their respective homes and interviewing witnesses. About 8 p.m. that evening the officers received a radio message from the jail that the appellant and his accomplice had asked to talk with them. These officers testified that the appellant made an oral confession which was introduced in evidence at appellant's trial. The officers denied that appellant was subjected to any physical abuse by them or anyone else to their knowledge and that the appellant exhibited no evidence of abuse nor made any complaint to them. One of the officers testified that appellant was permitted to use the telephone before making any admissions. There was no testimony elicited as to the right of the appellant to remain silent, or that any statement he made could be used for or against him, or that he was informed of his rights as to counsel.
In its findings the court correctly stated that the required Miranda warning was not in effect at the time the appellant made his alleged confession. The procedural safeguards underlying the privilege against self-incrimination enunciated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), are not retroactive. Gross v. State, 246 Ark. 909, 440 S.W.2d 543 (1969).
The court further found there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant without the confession. Even so, the admission of an involuntary confession is considered prejudicial and reversible error although there is other evidence which is sufficient to sustain a verdict. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963). Therefore, this finding is inapplicable to the voluntariness of appellant's statements.
The trial court also found that the records of the officers in the present proceeding indicate that the confession was valid according to the rules of evidence obtaining at that time. We do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vault v. State
...specific and definitive findings on the question by the trial judge. Mitchell v. Bishop, 245 Ark. 899, 435 S.W.2d 91; Johnson v. State, 248 Ark. 184, 450 S.W.2d 564. In each case, we ultimately sustained the finding of the trial court that the statements there involved were voluntary. See M......
-
Worth v. Civil Service Com'n of El Dorado, 87-229
...(1952); Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358, 53 S.Ct. 145, 77 L.Ed. 360 (1932); Johnson v. State, 248 Ark. 184, 450 S.W.2d 564 (1970); Ford v. King, 268 Ark. 128, 594 S.W.2d 227 (1980); Leffler v. Banks, 251 Ark. 277, 472 S.W.2d 110 (1971). That is often ......
-
Freeman v. State
...the burden of proving that it was actually voluntary rests upon the state. Scott v. State, 251 Ark. 918, 475 S.W.2d 699; Johnson v. State, 248 Ark. 184, 450 S.W.2d 564, (on petition for postconviction relief) 249 Ark. 268, 459 S.W.2d 56. In order to be voluntary, a confession must have been......
-
Land O'Frost, Inc. v. Pledger, 91-220
...S.W.2d 364 (1988). But while that is said to be the "general" rule, it has never been categorically true. See e.g., Johnson v. State, 248 Ark. 184, 450 S.W.2d 564 (1970); Hall v. Hall, 274 Ark. 266, 623 S.W.2d 833 (1981). We examined the rule of retroactivity in some depth in a comparable s......