Petition of Wright

• Decision Date: 04 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. FS-68-C-4.,FS-68-C-4.
• Parties: Petition of Larry James WRIGHT.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

282 F. Supp. 999

Petition of Larry James WRIGHT.

No. FS-68-C-4.

United States District Court W. D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division.

April 4, 1968.

Charles R. Ledbetter, Martin Green, J. Sam Wood, Fort Smith, Ark., for plaintiff.

Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for defendant.

OPINION

JOHN E. MILLER, Senior District Judge.

There is before the court the petition of Larry James Wright filed February 15, 1968, and amended petition filed March 8, 1968, for writ of habeas corpus for the discharge of the petitioner from the Arkansas Penitentiary where he is presently serving a life sentence.

On February 16, 1967, the Prosecuting Attorney within and for the Twelfth Circuit of the State of Arkansas filed an information charging the petitioner, Larry James Wright, with the crime of rape committed as follows, to-wit: "The said defendant, in the County, District and State aforesaid, on the 24 day of January, 1967, did unlawfully and feloniously, forcibly, and against her will and consent carnally know Sharon Kay Masingale, a female, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas."

The statute alleged to have been violated is Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-3401.

Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-3403, provides:

"Any person convicted of the crime of rape shall suffer the punishment of death or life imprisonment."

The defendant was tried to a jury on May 9, 1967, and the jury on the same date returned the following verdict:

"IN THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT FORT SMITH DISTRICT

Case No. 811

STATE OF ARKANSAS, Plaintiff v LARRY JAMES WRIGHT, Defendant

VERDICT

"We, the Jury, find the defendant `Guilty' as charged and fix his punishment at life imprisonment.

"The jury recommends psychiatric treatment be made available to this man.

/s/ R. M. Buzbee Foreman"

Upon the above verdict the defendant on May 12, 1967, was sentenced to the State Penitentiary for life.

On May 22, 1967, the petitioner herein filed a motion for a new trial, in which he set forth certain alleged errors by the court.

On May 25, 1967, the trial court overruled the motion for new trial. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas was perfected, and on October 16, 1967, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the judgment of the trial court, Wright v. State of Arkansas, 243 Ark. 221, 419 S.W.2d 320.

In the original petition for habeas corpus, the petitioner alleged:

"II.

"The petitioner was denied due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment as set forth in paragraphs one through four of his petition for rehearing (Exhibit `E') which was filed in the Arkansas Supreme Court and denied. In that petition for rehearing the petitioner gave the Arkansas Supreme Court an opportunity to re-examine the error it had made in the disposition of this petitioner's case and it declined to do so. The petitioner was denied due process in the following particulars:

"A. The trial court allowed the prosecuting attorney to prejudicially accuse the defendant of other sex crimes for which he had never been arrested, indicted or convicted. The trial court did not limit cross-examination attacks by the prosecution on the defendant's credibility to other crimes. This error in cross-examination resulted in the jury's being inflamed and prejudiced as reflected in the verdict recommending psychiatric treatment when the issue of insanity was not presented to them.

B. In his appeal the petitioner raised the issue of limitations on the State's right of cross-examination and cited two Arkansas cases to-wit: Johnson v. State, 161 Ark. 111, 255 S.W. 571; and Hunt v. State, 114 Ark. 239, 169 S.W. 773; and Ark.Stat. 28-707 which limit cross-examination attacks on defendant's credibility and do not allow accusations or questions as to mere arrests, accusations or indictments. The opinion of the Arkansas Supreme Court which is attached hereto as Exhibit `D' on its face demonstrates that the Court ignored its own State law and its State-imposed limitations on cross-examination in criminal prosecution such as this case.

C. The failure of the Arkansas Supreme Court to apply its own case law and statutes to this defendant is a denial of equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.

D. The failure of the Arkansas Supreme Court to decide the issues raised in the appeal is a denial of due process. The failure of the Court to construe, overrule or apply cases cited in point and statutes which are applicable is a denial of due process and equal protection of the law.

"III.

"At the time of the imposition of the sentence the petitioner was legally and medically insane. Attached hereto as Exhibit `G' is an exact copy of a report of Dr. Sims, a psychiatrist chosen by the Court itself. Attached hereto as shown on page nine of the abstract of the record (Exhibit `A') is an exact copy of the verdict which states:

"`We, The Jury, find the defendant "Guilty" as charged and fix his punishment at life imprisonment.

"`The Jury recommends psychiatric treatment be made available to this man.

/s/ R. M. Buzbee Foreman'

"The imposition of sentence and the trial of a defendant who is medically insane is a denial of due process of the law and equal protection of the law.

"WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that his application for writ of habeas corpus be granted and that he either be released from his illegal incarceration by the State of Arkansas or that he be given a new trial."

The Attorney General of Arkansas on February 28, 1968, filed a motion to dismiss the petition, to which the petitioner filed a response on March 6.

On March 7, 1968, a hearing on the petition was held, at which the petitioner introduced evidence in support of the petition and at the conclusion thereof asked and was granted leave to file an amended petition to conform to the evidence. The State announced that it had no evidence to offer at that time and was given ten days in which to make an investigation and advise the court whether it desired to submit any evidence or cross-examine petitioner's witnesses.

Following the hearing the petitioner filed an amendment to his petition in which he alleged:

"II.

"In addition to the grounds alleged in the original petition, petitioner now further alleges that he was denied due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution on the grounds:

A. The State, on or about May 13-15, 1967, while the case was pending in the trial court, suppressed evidence beneficial to the defendant. That the suppressed evidence established probable cause that the alleged rape of Sharon Kay Masingale was not committed by the defendant petitioner, Larry James Wright, but was committed by Richard Smack, whose name and address was known to the Police Department and the Prosecuting Attorney, together with physical evidence consisting of a purse belonging to Sharon Kay Masingale which was taken the night of the alleged rape, said purse being found under the house of Richard Smack, together with a girdle belonging to another woman, and three rectal syringes.

B. That the State suppressed evidence consisting of a statement taken from Mildred Dodd, another woman who had been raped and who had identified Richard Smack from a high school annual as the person she thought had raped her. That the State failed to reveal this evidence to the defense while the case was on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court. That the State failed to reveal this evidence to the defense while the case was pending in the trial court on the motion for new trial. That the State failed to reveal this evidence and suppressed same at the time the defendant was sentenced.

"III.

"That the failure to reveal this evidence adduced by the State when it was known to the Prosecuting Attorney, as shown by the testimony of the investigating officers, constitutes a denial of due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and is an unconstitutional suppression of evidence which entitles the petitioner to relief by Habeas Corpus."

On March 21, 1968, the attorneys for the petitioner and the Attorney General of Arkansas, through Honorable Don Langston, Assistant Attorney General, filed a stipulation, in which they agreed:

"* * * that upon cross-examination Captain Marvin Cole, Detective Murray and Officer Carruth of the Fort Smith Police Department would testify that their first knowledge of the facts and evidence as shown on their written reports of May 13, 1967 (petitioner's hearing Exhibit No. 2) and May 15, 1967 (petitioner's hearing Exhibit No. 1) was on the dates as shown on those reports and that upon a further hearing would so testify."

Exhibit No. 2 is a statement by Wendell Carruth dated May 13, 1967, and is as follows:

SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT

"F.S.P.D. #42 NO. ________ NAME OF COMPLAINANT MR. SMACK OFFENSE FOUND PURSE DETAILS OF OFFENSE, PROGRESS OF INVESTIGATION, ETC DATE MAY 13 19 67

"At approximately 7:50 p. m. date I (Carruth) received a call to go to No. Greenwood and No. J St. to the Smack resident, upon arrival Mrs. Smack came to the door and had a brown ladies purse in her hand and stated that she had found it under her house when her and Mr. Smack was taking the cover from the vent holes under the house. When I (Carruth) arrived at the station started to check inside the purse and found that it belonged to a Mrs. Sharon K. Massingale. Mrs. Massingale is the party that was raped on 1/19/67 where Larry Wright was given life for same. Purse was taken the night of the attack. Purse appeared to have been under the house for a long period of time and appeared to not have been rained on."

Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 is a statement of Investigating Officer M. L. Murray, and reads as follows:

SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT

"F.S.P.D. #42 NO. _________ NAME OF COMPLAINANT Sharon Kay Masingale - Mildred Dodd OFFENSE Rape DETAILS OF OFFENSE, PROGRESS OF...