Webb v. State, CR

• Decision Date: 12 May 1975
• Docket Number: No. CR,CR
• Citation: 522 S.W.2d 406,258 Ark. 95
• Parties: Velma Jean WEBB, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 75--25.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 406

522 S.W.2d 406

258 Ark. 95

Velma Jean WEBB, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR 75--25.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 12, 1975.

Harkness, Friedman & Kusin, Texarkana, for appellant.

Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by Gary Isbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

The appellant, after the fatal shooting of Carvin Cooper, was charged with voluntary manslaughter, was found guilty by a jury, and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. For reversal the appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to prove by Officer Furlow the substance of an oral confession made by Mrs. Webb a short while after the homicide. We have concluded that the contention must be sustained.

As will be seen, the facts are somewhat similar to those in Davis v. State, 243 Ark. 157, 419 S.W.2d 125 (1967). There the accused, after having been warned of his right to remain silent, at first said that he did not want to tell what had happened. The officers nevertheless continued the interrogation and soon elicited an oral confession. In finding reversible error we said:

Under the ruling in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the alleged confession was plainly inadmissible. There the court, after detailing the officers' duty to warn a suspected person of his constitutional rights, went on to say: 'Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.' Here the State's own proof shows that the rule just quoted was violated by the officers who interrogated Davis. His asserted confession was therefore inadmissible.

In the case at bar Mrs. Webb was arrested at her home, where the homicide took place, and was taken to police headquarters in Magnolia. At the Denno hearing Officer Furlow testified that he warned Mrs. Webb of her rights though he did not ask her to sign a waiver. Officer Furlow noted in his written report that Mrs. Webb said she would rather see a lawyer before answering any questions, but the officer did not offer to allow her to call an attorney. Mrs. Webb testified that the officer, without informing her of her right to an attorney, first asked her what had happened. Although she indicated her desire to have her attorney present while she made a statement, the officer did not offer to call a lawyer, did not tell her that she could use the telephone for that purpose, and started asking questions. According to Mrs. Webb she was not informed of her rights until after she had told Officer Furlow what had happened.

At the Denno hearing Officer Furlow went...