Vault v. Adkisson, 73--5
| Decision Date | 19 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--5,73--5 |
| Citation | 254 Ark. 75,491 S.W.2d 609 |
| Parties | Robert VAULT, Petitioner, v. Richard B. ADKISSON, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
James R. Howard, Little Rock, for petitioner.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Frank B. Newell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for respondent.
Petitioner, Robert Vault, was jointly charged with two other co-defendants with the crime of Murder in the First Degree. On November 6, 1972, Vault moved for a severance under the provisions of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43--1802 (Repl.1964), such motion being denied by the court. Thereafter, Vault filed a petition with this court seeking a Writ of Mandamus, his contention being that the severance provided for in the aforementioned statute is mandatory and the court has no discretion in the matter. The pertinent parts of the section at issue read as follows:
'When two (2) or more defendants are jointly indicted for a capital offense, any defendant requiring it is entitled to a separate trial; when indicted for a felony less than capital, defendants may be tried jointly or separately, in the discretion of the trial court.'
The filing of this petition is, of course, occasioned by the United States Supreme Court ruling in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), in which the court decided that where a jury is permitted to decide between the punishments of life and death, the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and the court held this interpretation applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. We recognized this holding in Graham v. State, 253 Ark. ---, 486 S.W.2d 678, (1972). Petitioner argues that since 'capital offenses' no longer exist, the most severe penalty provided is life imprisonment, and we should construe the statute to hold that one is entitled to a severance when he is subject to the most severe penalty known to the law. To hold otherwise, says petitioner, would be to emasculate the section, which would be contrary to our long-established rules of statutory construction. It is true that we have said that where practicable, statutes will be construed so that every provision contained therein may be operative, 1 but we do not agree that such a construction in the petition before us would be practicable. Actually, we are being asked to change the wording 'for a capital offense' to 'for an offense punishable by life imprisonment', and such a holding would constitute judicial legislation.
Petitioner cites statutes from some other States which provide for a severance where two or more defendants are jointly indicted for any felony, but such citations are of no help here, for all are legislative enactments. To the contrary, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43--1802 is the only Arkansas statute which had made mandatory the granting of a severance. A capital crime or offense, according to Volume I, Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Third Revision) is 'One for which the punishment of death is inflicted'. In fact, we are not familiar with any definition of capital offense contrary to that definition. As long ago as 1850, this court stated that it is only where terms used in a statute are ambiguous that construction is permissible, and that where there is no ambiguity, there is no room for construction. Wilson v. Biscoe, et al, 11 Ark. 44. In Berry v. Sale, 184 Ark. 655, 43 S.W.2d 225, Chief Justice Hart, speaking for the court, pointed out that where the intention of the Legislature is clear from the words used, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for adding to or changing the meaning of the language employed, and in the 1965 case of Black v. Cockrill, Judge, 239 Ark. 367, 389 S.W.2d 881, this court stated:
'The meaning of a statute must be determined from the natural and obvious import of the language used by the legislature without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending the meaning.' (Emphasis supplied)
The question is not what constitutes 'better procedure', but simply a matter of what the statute provides and we hold that it very clearly provides a severance as a matter of right only in cases where the accused upon conviction is subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. State
...332 Ark. 49, 52, 961 S.W.2d 32, 34 (1998), without "adding to or changing the meaning of the language employed," Vault v. Adkisson, 254 Ark. 75, 77, 491 S.W.2d 609, 610 (1973), we have no doubt that the State in this case bore the burden of proving not merely that Mr. Greene committed prior......
-
Holloway v. State, CR
...severance is within the sound discretion of the trial court.' Keese and Pilgreen v. State, 223 Ark. 261, 265 S.W.2d 542; Vault v. Adkisson, 254 Ark. 75, 491 S.W.2d 609. We find no abuse of discretion in the instant Next, let us review the point that separate counsel should have been appoint......
-
Johnson v. State
...that they provide different procedures for capital cases. E. g. In re Tarr, 109 Ariz. 264, 508 P.2d 728 (1973); Vault v. Adkisson, 254 Ark. 75, 491 S.W.2d 609 (1973); State v. Aillon, 295 A.2d 666 (Conn.1972); Donaldson v. Sack, 265 So.2d 499 (Fla.1972); State v. Johnson, 61 N.J. 351, 294 A......
-
Bell v. State
...are jointly indicted for a capital offense, any defendant requiring it is entitled to a separate trial . . ..' In Vault v. Adkisson, 254 Ark. 75, 491 S.W.2d 609 (1973), it was pointed out that an appellant can invoke the procedure of a separate trial 'as a matter of right' only when 'the ac......