Lasley v. State
| Decision Date | 07 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 625 S.W.2d 466,274 Ark. 352 |
| Parties | David L. LASLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 81-22. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Randall W. Ishmael and David N. Laser, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Arnold M. Jochums, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. On appeal he argues the following four points: (1) the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion for two separate juries; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to allow appellant's counsel to voir dire prospective juror, Mr. Wood, out of the presence of the other prospective jurors, regarding a newspaper article that he had read concerning the case; (3) the court erred in not granting appellant's motion for a mistrial; and, (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and the court erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal at the close of the state's case and in not directing a verdict of acquittal at the close of all the evidence. We do not find prejudicial error in any of the points argued and therefore affirm the judgment rendered in the court below.
Wanda Turnbow, an employee of J. C. Penney Company, was murdered on the evening of December 28, 1979, while she and Thomas Lloyd, a fellow employee, were closing the store. Lloyd testified that while he and Turnbow were closing up he heard a knock on the outside door which was locked. He went to the door and saw the appellant, a former employee, and not being suspicious he opened the door and allowed him to come in. Lloyd testified that the appellant then pulled a gun, forced him to open up the safe, then caused Mrs. Turnbow and him to get up against the wall inside the vault. He said that appellant fired one shot which went by his left ear and clipped a part of his afro hairdo. He also heard the appellant shoot Mrs. Turnbow three times. Lloyd stated that when the bullet narrowly missed him he feigned death and slumped to the floor. He said he glanced up at the appellant as he was taking the money from the safe and leaving the vault. Lloyd alleged he stayed on the floor for several minutes after the appellant left and then attempted to pull the vault door open but was unable to do so. During the next few minutes he wrote a note on a piece of cardboard which stated that the appellant killed Wanda Turnbow.
When Mrs. Turnbow did not arrive home at the expected time her husband went to the store. He was able to enter through the unlocked door, then contacted Lloyd by voice through the vault door and upon opening the door found his wife's body in a pool of blood and Mr. Lloyd standing with the note in his hand stating the appellant had been the perpetrator of the crime.
The appellant's version of what happened is entirely different. He stated that he was on suspension as an employee of the store as a result of a $1500 shortage in company funds a few weeks earlier which he contended Thomas Lloyd had taken and given him a portion of to remain quiet. He further testified that he received a call from Lloyd on the morning of the murder. He said Lloyd requested him to bring a pistol to the store at closing time, which would be used to make it look like there had been a robbery although Lloyd was really going to pull an inside job. Appellant stated he secured his father's pistol and delivered it to Lloyd at the door of the store about 9:15 p. m. on the date of the murder. He alleged that Lloyd told him to return in 15 or 20 minutes and at that time Lloyd appeared at the door and handed him a money bag containing some money and the pistol which he had given Lloyd earlier. Appellant stated Lloyd told him he had changed his mind but was giving him some money and returning the pistol because of the trouble he had gone through.
The appellant took a friend into his confidence later in the evening and told him he had received some money as a part of a robbery and wanted the friend to hide it. The friend hid the money bag. It contained $600 to $700 when discovered. The other bags and the balance of the money and checks were never recovered.
The police came to the murder scene and made a complete investigation. The report revealed a bullet hole two feet four inches above the floor with a hair-like object where the bullet had entered. A second bullet was located about five feet four inches above the floor. Appellant obtained this police report along with other items through Rule 17 discovery procedures. However, the day before the trial the officer who made the report decided that he had made a mistake as to which place the hair-like object was located. He changed his report to show that this item was found at the five feet four inch level rather than the two feet four inch level as shown on the report. This was reported immediately to the prosecuting attorney who changed his copy of the file report to reflect the new information. However, appellant did not learn of this change until the officer testified on the stand. He moved for a mistrial immediately which was denied. The appellant insisted that this surprise information amounted to a complete change of circumstances and required an entirely different approach to his defense. The hair-like object had not been analyzed nor was it introduced into evidence.
There is no need for us to take much time or space to dispose of the argument that the appellant was entitled to be tried by two juries. Our Criminal Code (Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1301 (Repl.1977)) provides that the same jury shall both hear the evidence and determine the sentence in a bifurcated trial for capital murder. The argument that a death qualified jury is impermissible has been dealt with many times by this court and has been repeatedly rejected. Giles v. State, 261 Ark. 413, 549 S.W.2d 479, cert. denied 434 U.S. 894, 98 S.Ct. 272, 54 L.Ed.2d 180 (1977). We recognize that the case of Grigsby v. Mabry, 483 F.Supp. 1372 (E.D.Ark.1980), was reversed and remanded in 637 F.2d 525 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruiz v. State
...421 (1981); Simpson v. State, rev'd, 274 Ark. 188, 623 S.W.2d 200 (1981), aff'd, 278 Ark. 334, 645 S.W.2d 688 (1983); Lasley v. State, 274 Ark. 352, 625 S.W.2d 466 (1981); Hall v. State, 276 Ark. 245, 634 S.W.2d 115 (1982), petition for post-conviction relief denied, No. CR 81-130, unpublis......
-
State v. Webb
...Blackburn, 783 F.2d 1046, 1052 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1042, 107 S.Ct. 1984, 95 L.Ed.2d 823 (1987); Lasley v. State, 274 Ark. 352, 356, 625 S.W.2d 466 (1981); Hellman v. State, 492 So.2d 1368, 1372 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986); Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 692, 362 S.E.2d 351 (19......
-
Perry v. State
...of cases rejecting the argument that a "death qualified" jury is more apt to convict than a jury not so qualified. Lasley v. State, 274 Ark. 352, 625 S.W.2d 466 (1981); Ruiz & Van Denton v. State, 273 Ark. 94, 617 S.W.2d 6 (1981); and Gruzen v. State, 276 Ark. 149, 634 S.W.2d 92 (1982). We ......
-
Henry v. State, CR
...Appellant readily admits that we have previously rejected the argument that a death qualified jury is impermissible. Lasley v. State, 274 Ark. 352, 625 S.W.2d 466 (1981). We are at this time still of the opinion that such qualification is THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS RULING TO ALLOW IMPEACH......