Patrick v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 04 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 255 Ark. 10,498 S.W.2d 337 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | Billy Ray PATRICK et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 73-59. |
Robert F. Morehead, Pine Bluff, for appellants.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by James W. Atkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellants, Billy Ray Patrick, Lonnie Ray Randolph and James Jackson were convicted of burglary and grand larceny in connection with the burglary of Fong's Grocery Store in Eudora. Appellants attack the propriety of their confessions being admitted into evidence. Also, they contend that the trial court erred in admitting exhibits consisting of some dollar bills, silver certificates, quarter wrappers and an empty cartridge box, all of which purportedly came from the victim's safe.
The first point concerns the admissibility of Lonnie Ray Randolph's statement. It is pointed out that Randolph was incarcerated for five days; that the jail cell was leaky; that he was questioned several times by five officers; and that he was fifteen years of age at the time. No evidence was introduced that any of the recited circumstances contributed to coercion. Randolph's main argument is that the taking of a statement from a fifteen-year- old boy is violative of his constitutional rights. We have held to the contrary in a case involving a boy of the same age. In Mosley v. State, 246 Ark. 358, 438 S.W.2d 311 (1969) we said:
By the great weight of authority a minor is capable of making an admissible voluntary confession, there being no requirement that he have the advice of a parent, guardian, or other adult. The cases are analyzed at length in People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 432 P.2d 202 (1967), and need not be re-examined here.
Randolph also contends that no statement should have been taken from him because of his age. He cites Ark.Stat.Ann. § 45-224 (Repl.1964). That statute provides that a person under eighteen years of age, who is arrested without a warrant, shall forthwith be taken before the county juvenile court and the case examined to determine whether he is dependent or neglected. That statute is directory and not mandatory. We have so held with respect to a similar statute, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43-601 (Repl.1964). That statute provides that any person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith carried before a magistrate. We have held § 43-601 to be directory and not mandatory; further, we have many times recited that the failure to comply with that statute does not void a confession. Moore v. State, 229 Ark. 335, 315 S.W.2d 907 (1958); Paschal v. State, 243 Ark. 329, 420 S.W.2d 73 (1967).
All three appellants gave confessions. Those instruments were introduced in toto. Each confession implicated the other two appellants. Appellants argue here and made it known in the trial court that it was error to introduce cross implicating confessions. (None of the appellants testified.) The point is well taken. We faced the same problem in Mosby and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vault v. State
...without the advice of his parent, guardian or other adult. Mosley v. State, 246 Ark. 358, 438 S.W.2d 311. See also, Patrick v. State, 255 Ark. ---, 498 S.W.2d 337 (1973). We sustained a finding that a 15- or 16-year-old defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. ......
-
Green v. Byrd
...v. Stephens, 353 F.2d 129 (8th Cir. 1965), cert, denied, 384 U.S. 1019, 86 S.Ct. 1966, 16 L. Ed. 2d 1042 (1966); Patrick v. State, 255 Ark. 10, 498 S.W.2d 337 (1973); Orr v. State, 256 Ark. 547, 508 S.W.2d 731 (1974); Bailey v. State, 284 Ark. 379, 682 S.W.2d 734 (1985).16-85-202. Authority......
-
Stewart v. State
...(1971); Byrd v. State, 251 Ark. 149, 471 S.W.2d 350 (1971); Grooms v. State, 251 Ark. 374, 472 S.W.2d 724 (1971); and Patrick v. State, 255 Ark. 10, 498 S.W.2d 337 (1973). In the case at bar, as indicated, the codefendant's name in each cross-implicating confession was deleted and replaced ......
-
Rouw v. State
...take the juvenile before the juvenile court. We have held identical language to be directory, but not mandatory. Patrick v. State, 255 Ark. 10, 498 S.W.2d 337. I am baffled by the majority's reference to the two principal cases cited by appellant in support of his argument in this respect. ......