Westbrook v. State
| Decision Date | 23 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 624 S.W.2d 433,274 Ark. 309 |
| Parties | Booker T. WESTBROOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 81-68. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Julius Kearney, Pine Bluff, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
On August 29, 1977, the appellant shot and killed the Dermott Chief of Police in the course of a struggle between the two men for possession of the officer's pistol. The appellant was charged with capital murder. After the first trial a judgment imposing the death penalty was reversed for errors prejudicial to the defendant. Westbrook v. State, 265 Ark. 736, 580 S.W.2d 702 (1979). The venue was changed to Ashley county. This appeal comes from a second trial at which the appellant was again found guilty of capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We find no prejudicial error in the four points that are argued or elsewhere in the abstracts and briefs submitted by counsel.
First, it is argued that the court should have granted the defendant's motion to quash the jury panel for racial discrimination in its selection. There was actually no positive proof of the percentage of black citizens in the county, nor of an actual underrepresentation of blacks on the jury panel, nor of any discrimination by the jury commissioners in the selection of the jury panel. It is now argued that various sections of the statutes, especially Ark.Stat.Ann. § 39-102 (Supp.1981), afford jury commissioners a possible means of discriminating against blacks in the selection process. Even so, the statutes are not unconstitutional on their face, because they can be put into effect without any racial discrimination whatever. Waters & Adams v. State, 271 Ark. 33, 607 S.W.2d 336 (1980). Here the essential fact of actual, purposeful discrimination has not been shown.
Second, it is again urged that the defendant was entitled to the appointment of an independent psychiatrist at public expense. That contention was rejected on the first appeal and is barred by the law of the case. Moreover, the defendant was twice sent to the State Hospital for examination, with findings that he was without psychosis, and expert witnesses gave testimony favorable to him on the issue of his mental capacity.
Third, on a related point it is argued that the trial judge, after a hearing in chambers, should have acquitted the defendant on the ground of mental disease or defect. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-609 (Repl.1977). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruiz v. State
...involving the death penalty, the appellants received lesser sentences on retrial. We affirmed both lesser sentences. Westbrook v. State, 274 Ark. 309, 624 S.W.2d 433 (1981); Hobbs v. State, 277 Ark. 271, 641 S.W.2d 9 (1981). We have reversed three cases that have not come back to us on appe......
-
Bowen v. State
...cases of extreme mental disease or defect where the lack of responsibility on the part of the defendant is clear." Westbrook v. State, 274 Ark. 309, 624 S.W.2d 433 (1981). Denial of the motion was clearly within the Trial Court's authority and discretion. The medical report stated at one po......
-
Riggs v State
...an element of the crime of murder. She concedes that this court has already decided this issue unfavorably to her in Westbrook v. State, 274 Ark. 309, 624 S.W.2d 433 (1981), and in Robinson v. State, 269 Ark. 90, 598 S.W.2d 421 (1980). She argues, nonetheless, that this court should overrul......
-
Davasher v. State
...lack of responsibility on the part of the defendant is clear." Franks v. State, 306 Ark. 75, 811 S.W.2d 301 (1991); Westbrook v. State, 274 Ark. 309, 624 S.W.2d 433 (1981). Denial of the motion was clearly within the Trial Court's authority and b. Directed verdict Mental disease or defect i......
-
Act 248, SB 5 – AN ACT TO AMEND ARKANSAS CODE 5-2-312(a) TO REQUIRE JURORS BE INFORMED AS TO THE TREATMENT, CARE AND CUSTODY OF DEFENDANTS FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT
...is the intent of the General Assembly to specifically abrogate Robinson v. State, 269 Ark. 90, 598 S.W.2d 421 (1980); Westbook v. State, 274 Ark. 309, 624 S.W.2d 633 (1981); and Riggs v. State, 339 Ark. 111, 3 S.W. 3d 305 (b) It is further the intent of the General Assembly that juries in A......