Paschal v. State, 5306
| Decision Date | 30 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5306,5306 |
| Citation | 420 S.W.2d 73,243 Ark. 329 |
| Parties | Willie Lee PASCHAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
McKay, Anderson & Crumpler, Magnolia, for appellant.
Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Charged with having had possession of goods which he knew to have been stolen, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41--3938 (Repl.1964). For reversal he contends, first, that his admission of guilt was inadmissible and, second, that it was not sufficiently corroborated.
On January 3, 1967, police officers were investigating the burglary of a liquor store in Ouachita county. Acting upon information that the stolen whiskey was being sold in Columbia county the officers obtained a search warrant and searched Paschal's home near Magnolia. They found two casesof whiskey, which were later identified as having been taken in the burglary. The officers arrested Paschal and took him to Camden, in Ouachita county, for questioning. There is no contention that Paschal was not duly warned of his constitutional rights before the interrogation began. According to the State's testimony, Paschal readily admitted that he knew that the liquor had been stolen.
Counsel for the appellant, citing McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943), insist that the confession was inadmissible because Paschal had not been taken before a magistrate for commitment, as the statute requires. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43--601. The McNabb case, however, involved the interpretation of federal statutes that do not apply to the states. State v. Browning, 206 Ark. 791, 178 S.W.2d 77 (1944). Under our statute the failure to take an arrested person before a magistrate does not vitiate a confession, because the statute is construed to be directory only. State v. Browning, supra; Moore v. State, 229 Ark. 335, 315 S.W.2d 907 (1958).
Nor is there merit in the suggestion that the confession should have been excluded because Paschal was held in confinement for several days before he was charged with an offense. Such an illegal detention does not retroactively affect an admissible confession that was made soon after the initial arrest. United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65, 64 S.Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed. 1140 (1944). This is true because the necessary causal connection between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...take one lawfully arrested before a magistrate for preliminary examination. Moore v. State, 229 Ark. 335, 315 S.W.2d 907; Paschal v. State, 243 Ark. 329, 420 S.W.2d 73. 3. We find ample evidence to justify the arrest of appellant in this case. His actions and conduct after the officers had ......
-
Ellingburg v. State
...statute to be directory only and not mandatory. Mitchell v. Bishop, 248 Ark. 427, 452 S.W.2d 340; Jones v. State, supra; Paschal v. State, 243 Ark. 329, 420 S.W.2d 73. II. The contention that the bench warrant was defective on its face must fail. The bench warrant is not in the record, and ......
-
State v. Jones
...51 N.J. at 486, 242 A.2d at 329. Recent state decisions elsewhere have followed a similar course. See, E.g., Paschal v. State, 243 Ark. 329, 420 S.W.2d 73 (1967); Priest v. State, Del., 227 A.2d 576 (1967); State v. Minor, 78 N.M. 680, 437 P.2d 141 (1968); People v. Carter, 39 Ill.2d 31, 23......
-
Landrum v. State
...while being delayed from a first appearance. See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 258 Ark. 110, 522 S.W.2d 413 (1975); Paschal v. State, 243 Ark. 329, 420 S.W.2d 73 (1967). See generally Annotation, supra, § 3, at p. 1133 n. 19, and § 6, at pp. 1152-53, 1157; F. Lewis Steenken, Richardson v. State: ......