Newman v. State

Decision Date16 January 2014
Docket NumberNo. CR-12-118,CR-12-118
Citation2014 Ark. 7
CourtArkansas Supreme Court
PartiesRICKEY DALE NEWMAN APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 17-CR-2001-109]

HONORABLE GARY COTTRELL,

JUDGE

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Rickey Dale Newman appeals the order entered by the Crawford County Circuit Court denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. For reversal, Newman contends that the circuit court erred (1) by denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings; (2) in finding that he was competent to stand trial; (3) by refusing to admit evidence of his innocence; (4) in finding that the prosecution did not fail to disclose exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (5) by refusing to consider other alleged discovery violations. We find merit in the second issue raised on appeal and reverse and remand for a new trial. Because Newman is receiving a new trial based on the issue of competency, we need not address the remaining arguments on appeal. See Dimas-Martinez v. State, 2011 Ark. 515, 385 S.W.3d 238.

Factual Background

The record in this case discloses that, in late January 2001, officers with the Van Buren Police Department arrested transients Marie Cholette and her boyfriend, John Evans. Although Cholette was discharged the next day, Evans remained incarcerated, and Cholette stayed in the area awaiting Evans's release. On February 15, 2001, Benny Billy, another transient who was known as "Indian Billy," discovered Cholette's decomposing body in a tent at his hobo camp located in the vicinity of Lee Creek Park. Cholette had been brutally murdered. According to the medical examiner, she had sustained an antemortem wound to her neck that measured eight-and-one-quarter inches long and which transected the right carotid artery. Cholette had suffered multiple stab wounds and lacerations to her chest, and her nipples had been removed. She also had been sliced open from her sternum to her pelvic bone, exposing her intestines. Her liver had been removed from her body, one half of which was missing from the crime scene. In addition, while alive, Cholette had sustained extensive trauma to her anus and vagina, which had been cut out of her body. Cholette's jaw had been broken, and she had received significant contusions to her left eye. She had multiple contusions on her arms that were described as defensive wounds. The autopsy also disclosed that Cholette's pelvis contained ashes and burned debris. Testing revealed that Cholette had a therapeutic concentration of amitriptyline in her system, as well as a small amount of alcohol.

Also on February 15, 2001, Van Buren police officers interviewed Newman, who was also a transient rail rider, but who had grown up in the area and still had family who livedthere. In his statement, Newman, whose rail name was "Renegade," claimed that he had gone to the area referred to as the "T-camp" with Cholette, where they had met a trio of men whom Newman identified as "Psycho," "Snake," and "Copper." Newman said that Cholette and the three men were huffing paint and that he decided to leave Cholette at the camp because the men were "crazy," as they were speaking of "satanic worship" and the need to perform a "human sacrifice once a week." Newman also told the officers that the men said that they were staying "up there by Indian Billy's" camp. Newman denied knowing anything about Cholette's murder. However, he agreed to give blood and hair samples for DNA analysis.

Detective Brent Grill of the Van Buren Police Department interviewed Newman again on March 2, 2001. During this interview, Grill advised Newman that he had learned from Newman's uncle, Doug Ross, that Newman had taken Cholette to Ross's house and that Ross had driven them to the Shamrock Liquor Store. Grill also informed Newman that he had obtained a video from the liquor store dated February 7, 2001, showing Newman and Cholette inside the store buying wine and cigarettes. Newman was wearing a camouflage coat during the interview, and Grill also asked Newman what had happened to the jacket that Newman had been wearing in the video. Newman replied that he had traded the coat at the Rescue Mission, a facility near the railroad tracks where transients were fed and provided a place to spend the night. Eventually, Newman confessed to the murder. He said, however, that "I'll never say I did it. I'll [sic] Psycho probably did it. Rickey Newman didn't do it." Newman asked to write his statement, and Newman explained that at home he was knownas Rickey Newman and that he was Renegade on the track. He wrote that he becomes "Seaco" when he blacks out and that he cannot control "Seaco." Further, Newman wrote that when he becomes "Seaco" he will kill "anyone he see[s] as a threat" and stated that he was "guilb [sic] of all this."

Grill arrested Newman following this interview, and officers executed a search warrant at the home of Newman's adoptive mother to obtain articles of his clothing. The prosecuting attorney subsequently charged Newman with capital murder. At his arraignment on March 27, 2001, Newman expressed the desire to waive all of his rights and to plead guilty. The circuit court did not accept the guilty plea and appointed Robert Marquette, a public defender, to represent him. At a hearing on May 9, 2001, Newman informed the circuit court that he had fired Marquette. After warning Newman of the disadvantages of self-representation, the court permitted Newman to represent himself. The circuit court left Marquette as stand-by counsel and available to Newman if he wanted "to ask [Marquette] anything about the law."

While in jail awaiting trial, Newman wrote numerous letters to the circuit court and to the prosecuting attorney. In them, he at times proclaimed his innocence. On other occasions, he professed guilt and insisted that he receive the death penalty. Newman also repeatedly asked for the evidence to be turned over to him. In March 2002, Newman filed a motion seeking the production of evidence, and the circuit court held a hearing on this request on March 27, 2002. During the hearing, the prosecution tendered the police report of Detective Grill; the initial findings from the crime lab concerning cause of death; alaboratory-analysis report from the crime lab; the report of Newman's mental examination; and the medical examiner's autopsy report. The following day, Newman acknowledged the receipt of 214 pages of documents from the prosecution. The prosecuting attorney subsequently filed a supplemental response to Newman's discovery motion that included additional reports of laboratory analysis performed at the crime lab and other police reports.

On April 8, 2002, the circuit court conducted another hearing. At that time, Newman informed the court that Marquette was going to examine the witnesses at trial but that he (Newman) wished to make a statement to the jury. On May 7, 2002, Newman executed and filed of record a written waiver of the right to counsel.

On May 9, 2002, Newman initiated contact with law enforcement officers, and he gave another statement. In this statement, Newman said that he drugged Cholette and that he "sacrificed her" when she passed out. He also stated that he "punched her eyes out" with a six-inch knife that he had bought at Walmart. Newman advised that he had hidden articles of his and Cholette's clothing and the knife he used in the rafters of a shed that had since burned. Newman recalled that the "records" stated that there were items of food on a table, and he said that, although it was not mentioned in the report, there were hot dogs that he had purchased sitting on the table. Newman further stated that he planned on killing Cholette and that he enjoyed it. He said that he killed her because she was a fraud in that she claimed to be a black-rag member of the Freight Train Riders of America but that she was a fake because her "concha," a device that is used to tie a scarf, was made of tin instead of silver. When questioned, Newman repeatedly stated that everything that he did to Cholette wasdone inside of the tent.

On June 5, 2002, the circuit court held the omnibus hearing. At that time, Newman presented the testimony of Dr. Charles Mallory, a psychologist with the Arkansas State Hospital, who testified that Newman was competent to stand trial. Mallory found that Newman was not afflicted with a mental disease or defect, and he testified that he saw no signs or symptoms of multiple-personality disorder. Further, Mallory testified that, if a defendant were desirous of confessing to the crime and requesting a jury to sentence him to the death penalty, this would not of itself be an automatic symptom of mental disease or defect. He stated that a person who is rational and competent to stand trial can still have a deep and abiding conviction that he wished to pay for his crime. Based on Mallory's testimony and his report, the circuit court found that Newman was competent to stand trial.

Newman's trial began and concluded on June 10, 2002. Newman insisted on wearing jail clothing and shackles during the trial. The prosecution produced the testimony of the officers involved in the investigation; testimony from the medical examiner; testimony recounting Newman's statements and confessions; photographs of the crime scene and of Cholette's body, both as she was found in the tent and at the autopsy; testimony as to blood splatters found in the tent; and testimony that hairs microscopically similar to Cholette's were found on Newman's sweatpants, gloves, and boots; and testimony that one head hair that was microscopically similar to Newman's hair was contained in the vacuum samples taken from a sleeping bag and comforter found at the crime scene. In addition, Dr. Mallory testified that Newman was fit to proceed and that he could appreciate the criminality of his conduct at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Roberts v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 17, 2016
    ...are of utmost importance in death penalty cases, and the circuit court's fact-finding is not immune from review. See Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7, 2014 WL 197789 ; Harris v. State, 238 Ark. 780, 384 S.W.2d 477 ...
  • U.S. Carnell Petetan v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 8, 2017
    ...v. State, 639 P.2d 277, 293 n.34 (Alaska 1982) (quoting Schade v. State, 512 P.2d 907, 914 (Alaska 1973)) (see infra); Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7, 25-26 (2014) (statement similar to Bernard); Wickham v. State, 124 So. 3d 841, 862 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Medina); Tye v. State, 298 Ga. 474, 47......
  • Isom v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 20, 2018
    ...after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Newman v. State , 2014 Ark. 7, 2014 WL 197789.A. Alleged Failed IdentificationIsom asserted in his petition that Lawson was shown two photographic arrays that included his pic......
  • Scott v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 1, 2017
    ...its discretion in granting or denying the writ. Nelson v. State , 2014 Ark. 91, at 3–4, 431 S.W.3d 852, 854–55 (citing Newman v. State , 2014 Ark. 7, 2014 WL 197789 ). An abuse of discretion happens when the trial court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Id. A hearing is not required if the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT