Parker v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 21 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 268 Ark. 441,597 S.W.2d 586 |
| Parties | Patricia Kozel PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 80-26. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Paul Johnson, Little Rock, for appellant.
James F. Dowden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Patricia Kozel Parker was convicted of two counts of theft by deception in the Pulaski County Circuit Court and sentenced to serve ten years in the state penitentiary on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. She had entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, and the case was tried to the trial judge sitting as a jury.
On appeal she alleges five errors, all of which we find to be without merit and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The offense with which Patricia Parker was charged was that she pursued a check "kiting" scheme which resulted in a substantial loss to two Pulaski County banks. She makes no argument on appeal that she was not guilty as charged. Her argument is that she was not guilty because of a mental disease or defect. Both the State and Parker submitted expert testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists as to her mental condition. Parker's defense was that she had a dual personality. Her other personality was known as Pam Lease. It was Pam Lease, not Pat Parker, who conducted the check "kiting" scheme and Pat Parker had no control, knowledge or responsibility for what Pam Lease did. However, Pat Parker would serve the sentence, not Pam Lease. The trial judge found that the defense had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Patricia Parker was legally insane.
The first allegation of error is that the trial judge refused to permit the appellant Parker to introduce in evidence the results of a sodium amytal interview which was conducted at the University of Arkansas Medical Center in 1977. Dr. Charles Taylor, a psychiatrist who examined Mrs. Parker in 1977 at the Arkansas State Hospital, testified that he reached the conclusion Mrs. Parker was without psychosis. He was asked if he considered the record of the sodium amytal test which was in the State Hospital file when he made his diagnosis. At first Dr. Taylor said he did not consider it and the trial judge ruled that if he had not, it would not be admissible. Then Taylor conceded that he and several others had with some difficulty made out the microfilm record of the sodium amytal analysis.
The argument to us on appeal is that the sodium amytal record should have been admitted into evidence. That argument is misapplied. Dr. Taylor did not have the record before him when he testified; he was not an employee of the Arkansas State Hospital at the time he testified. No serious effort was made to cross-examine Dr. Taylor, an expert witness, as to whether the sodium amytal record affected his judgment. Such an examination would have been permitted under Rule 703, Uniform Rules of Evidence. Also, the appellant would be entitled to admit such evidence to the trier of fact regardless of whether the expert witness relied upon it, Rule 803(4), Uniform Rules of Evidence, subject only to authentication of the record. Apparently, the microfilm record of the test was available to the defense, either through discovery or was in the courtroom at the time the case was tried. However, that microfilm record was never proffered in evidence. We have ruled many times that there must be a proffer of the evidence that is improperly excluded for us to find error. Duncan v. State, 263 Ark. 242, 565 S.W.2d 1 (1978); Goodin v. Farmers Tractor & Equip. Co., 249 Ark. 30, 458 S.W.2d 419 (1970). See also, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 103(a)(2) (Repl.1979).
The second allegation of error is that the State called two witnesses in rebuttal, a psychologist and a psychiatrist, and their names were not furnished by the State as required by Rules of Crim.Proc., Rule 17.1(a). That rule does require the prosecuting attorney to disclose to defense counsel the names and addresses of persons he intends to call as witnesses at a trial. However, this does not mean that the prosecuting attorney has to furnish the defense counsel the names of witnesses he calls in rebuttal. It was the burden of the defense in this case to prove legal insanity. Hill v. Lockhart, 516 F.2d 910 (8th Cir. 1975); Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 S.W. 186 (1915); Coates v. State, 50 Ark. 330, 7 S.W. 304 (1887). There was no obligation on the part of the prosecuting attorney to offer any evidence regarding the mental condition of Parker and the two witnesses that were called were indeed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. v. Daggett
...appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Price v. Watkins, supra; B & J Byers Trucking, Inc. v. Robinson, supra; and Parker v. State, 268 Ark. 441, 597 S.W.2d 586 (1980). Drope, 298 Ark. at 73, 765 S.W.2d Since the Drope case, this court has had the opportunity to reexamine the admissibil......
-
Henderson v. State, CR
...when there was no proffer of excluded evidence because we have no way of knowing the substance of the evidence. Parker v. State, 268 Ark. 441, 597 S.W.2d 586 (1980). However, there is no need for a proffer in either of two situations. First, there is no need for a proffer where the substanc......
-
Wainwright v. State, CR
...to say during his testimony and that the state's proof was proper rebuttal testimony. The trial court was correct. In Parker v. State, 268 Ark. 441, 597 S.W.2d 586 (1980), we held that the state was not required to furnish the defense counsel the names of witnesses he was going to call in r......
-
Williams v. State
...questions. There must be a proffer of the evidence that is improperly excluded for us to find error. Ark. R. Evid. 103(a)(2), Parker v. State, 268 Ark. 441, 597 S.W.2d 586 (1980). Thus, we cannot address this issue. See Hodge v. State, 27 Ark.App. 93, 766 S.W.2d 619 Kathlene Williams also a......