{ "id": 6138892, "name": "Benjamin OLIVER v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Oliver v. State", "decision_date": "2002-04-24", "docket_number": "CA CR 01-988", "first_page": "202", "last_page": "205", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "77 Ark. App. 202" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "72 S.W.3d 547" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "27 Ark. App. 260", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141259 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/27/0260-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ark. App. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138709 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/71/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 Ark. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1756222 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/271/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 Ark. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 236197 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/329/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "446 U.S. 938", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6264902, 6266856, 6264649, 6267149, 6266317, 6266063, 6266584, 6265496, 6265210, 6265787 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "emphasis in Griffin" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/446/0938-02", "/us/446/0938-09", "/us/446/0938-01", "/us/446/0938-10", "/us/446/0938-07", "/us/446/0938-06", "/us/446/0938-08", "/us/446/0938-04", "/us/446/0938-03", "/us/446/0938-05" ] }, { "cite": "267 Ark. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1719827 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/267/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 Ark. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1712549 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/269/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 Ark. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717711 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/256/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 Ark. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 9159645 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/324/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 Ark. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1678946 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/261/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 Ark. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 683219 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/347/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "613 N.E.2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 Ill.2d 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4810021 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/155/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 Ark. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1447544 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "214" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/322/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 N.E. 2d 712", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 Ark. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1624198 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/254/0538-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 351, "char_count": 5093, "ocr_confidence": 0.711, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.17489185662947918 }, "sha256": "af9582106f16c2c770c3c313b7c1d89e5e6cd504401fda29b07a33b6f0c85f36", "simhash": "1:db6893a9f165429a", "word_count": 865 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:00:28.541561+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Robbins and Crabtree, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Benjamin OLIVER v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John E. Jennings, Judge.\nBenjamin Oliver was charged with first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of George Dove. Prior to trial, the circuit court conducted a Denno hearing after Oliver moved to suppress a statement he gave to the police. The court ruled that Oliver\u2019s statement was admissible and after a jury trial he was found guilty. Oliver was sentenced to sixty years in prison.\nHis sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting his confession absent the testimony of a material witness. We agree and reverse and remand.\nAt the suppression hearing, Oliver testified that officers threatened to beat him with a \u201cblackjack\u201d or \u201cbilly club\u201d during the course of the questioning. Detective Steve Knowles, who conducted the interview, testified at the suppression hearing. Detective Chuck Ray, who was also present, but took no significant part in the questioning, was not called as a witness.\nIn Smith v. State, 254 Ark. 538, 494 S.W.2d 489 (1973), the supreme court held that:\n[Wjhenever the accused offers testimony that his confession was induced by violence, threats, coercion, or offers of reward then the burden is upon the state to produce all material witnesses who were connected with the controverted confession or give adequate explanation for their absence.\nThe court in Smith relied in part on People v. Armstrong, 282 N.E. 2d 712 (Ill. 1972).\nIn Griffin v. State, 322 Ark. 206, 909 S.W.2d 625 (1995), the supreme court restated the rule:\nThe State has the burden to produce all material witnesses who were connected with the controverted confession or give an adequate explanation of their absence. (Emphasis in original.)\nThe court in Griffin noted that since Armstrong the rule had been repudiated in Illinois. See People v. R.D., 155 Ill.2d 122, 613 N.E.2d 706 (1993).\nThere is no requirement that the issue of the State\u2019s failure to call all material witnesses be raised in the trial court. Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 44, 60 S.W.3d 422 (2001); Matthews v. State, 261 Ark. 532, 549 S.W.2d 492 (1977).\nThe question, then, is whether Detective Ray was a material witness. In Bell v. State, 324 Ark. 258, 920 S.W.2d 821 (1996), the court said:\nIn determining whether a witness is \u201cmaterial,\u201d this court has stated that there must be some connection between the witness and the alleged acts of coercion or an opportunity to observe the alleged coercion.\nIn Smith v. State, 256 Ark. 67, 505 S.W.2d 504 (1974), the court said:\nThe State\u2019s evidence shows that Hale was present when Smith made the statement, and his name was signed as a witness at the end of the statement. It goes without saying that he was a material witness on the question.\nThe State relies on Hayes v. State, 269 Ark. 47, 598 S.W.2d 91 (1980). In Hayes the State called the two officers who were primarily responsible for conducting the questioning as witnesses at the Denno hearing. The State did not call Lieutenant Moore who was also present. The supreme court held that the State was not required to call Moore.\nIt is true, as the State contends, that Moore\u2019s participation in the questioning was virtually the same as Detective Ray\u2019s participation in the case at bar. The difference is that in Hayes there was no allegation of coercion or mistreatment, while here Oliver contends that he was threatened with physical violence.\nIn Griffin v. State, 322 Ark. 206, 909 S.W.2d 625 (1995), the court said, \u201cThere must be some connection between the alleged acts of coercion or an opportunity to observe the alleged coercion.\u201d Id. at 214 (quoting Bushong v. State, 267 Ark. 113, 589 S.W.2d 559 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 938 (1980) (emphasis in Griffin)). The court in Griffin found that the absent witnesses (jailers) were not material because \u201cthey were not in a position to observe the alleged coercion.\u201d\nIn the case at bar Detective Ray, while taking no significant part in the questioning, was in a position to observe the alleged coercion, and therefore it was error not to require that he be called as a witness. We agree with the State, however, that only a \u201climited remand\u201d is required. Rankin v. State, 329 Ark. 379, 948 S.W.2d 397 (1997); Harris v. State, 271 Ark. 568, 609 S.W.2d 48 (1980); Burnett v. State, 71 Ark. App. 142, 27 S.W.3d 454 (2000); Guinn v. State, 27 Ark. App. 260, 771 S.W.2d 290 (1989). We remand the case to the circuit court for the purpose of conducting a new Denno hearing. If the trial court determines, at the conclusion of the hearing, that the statement was not given voluntarily, the court should suppress the statement and order a new trial. If the court determines that the defendant\u2019s statement was voluntarily given, a new trial will not be required. See e.g., Burnett v. State, supra.\nReversed and remanded.\nRobbins and Crabtree, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "John E. Jennings, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Fernando Padilla, Public Defender Conflicts, for appellant.", "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Benjamin OLIVER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 01-988\n72 S.W.3d 547\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division IV\nOpinion delivered April 24, 2002\nFernando Padilla, Public Defender Conflicts, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0202-01", "first_page_order": 224, "last_page_order": 227 }