{ "id": 8719556, "name": "Albert HARRIS v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Harris v. State", "decision_date": "1968-03-11", "docket_number": "5314", "first_page": "314", "last_page": "323", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "244 Ark. 314" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "425 S.W.2d 293" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "241 F. Supp. 33", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 385352 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/241/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 U. S. 560", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6164736 ], "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/356/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 Ark. 727", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1697160 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/231/0727-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U. S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 Ark. 991", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1700045 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/230/0991-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 U. S. 503", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11718904 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "515" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/373/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U. S. 737", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12047392 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 U. S. 368", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6166505 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/378/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ark. 820", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1738001 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/237/0820-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 792, "char_count": 15459, "ocr_confidence": 0.544, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.945829619825746e-07, "percentile": 0.953476824324507 }, "sha256": "effe75b5016f169b28b86982e7c7f551937bfc461c61c2bf0ea6ec052a2eae05", "simhash": "1:1e262f64686a8a93", "word_count": 2681 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:25.068679+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Byrd, J., disqualified and not participating." ], "parties": [ "Albert HARRIS v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Lyle Brown, Justice.\nAppellant Albert Harris received a death sentence in April 1963. That sentence was here affirmed in Trotter and Harris v. State, 237 Ark. 820, 377 S. W. 2d 14 (1964). Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. Shortly thereafter, Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964) held that Jackson\u2019s case should be remanded because the same jury passed on both his guilt and the voluntariness of his confession. On the strength of that pronouncement in Denno-, Harris filed a petition in the United States District Court, alleging error because the record in his trial showed that the voluntariness of his alleged confessions, together with the question of guilt or innocence, were submitted to the same jury. Pursuant to the directive of the Federal Court, the State trial court conducted a hearing to determine the voluntariness of Harris\u2019 oral admissions. Harris brings this appeal from an adverse ruling.\nIt is not necessary to reconstruct the entire case. The facts are detailed in our Trotter and Harris decision. We are here concerned with two rather brief instances in which Harris is alleged to have made admissions pointing to his guilt. The first episode occurred at his home just before daylight and about four hours after the rape. As a result of there being questioned by officers, Harris was placed under arrest for investigation and taken to the city jail in Monticello. About two hours later he was there questioned by Jerry Wilson, the escort of the rape victim, who went to the jail for the purpose of identifying the prisoner. For clarity the testimony concerning those two episodes will be discussed in sequence.\n1. The Incident at the Harris Home. After apprehending Trotter, the officers received information that Harris and Trotter had been together that night. Two men were alleged to have committed the crime in concert. Sheriff Towler, State Patrolman Griffin, and City Officer Newton proceeded to Harris\u2019 home in Monticello. They had no search warrant. Harris and his wife were in bed and the lights were out. After several knocks on the door the wife responded and the officers entered. There is considerable variance between Harris\u2019 and the State\u2019s version of the conversations and transactions.\nHarris was his only witness at the Denno hearing. The essential parts of his testimony were as follows:\n\u201cThat morning when they come to my house and knocked on the door, my wife opened the. door and they just came on in. Ain\u2019t nobody asked them in. I was laying on the bed .... Lieutenant Griffin . . . said \u2018nigger, get up out of that bed.\u2019 I just got up and he had his hand in his coat pocket and I seen a pistol. The Sheriff told him that there ain\u2019t going to be no rough stuff .... The Sheriff, he said he knew my wife, he said he\u2019s been knowing her so many years and wanted to talk to us private. . .. We went back in the kitchen and closed the door. He said \u2018Albert, you are in a bad fix.\u2019 I said, \u2018Mr. Jack, what do you mean by a bad fix?\u2019 He said that Trotter said that me and him attacked Joyce Binns. ... He told me, \u2018Trotter is a bad boy, he\u2019s getting\u2019 into trouble all the time.\u2019 He said, \u2018I can help you, but I can\u2019t help him.\u2019 ... I said, \u2018I want to see an attorney.\u2019 He said, \u2018Well, you give me time and you\u2019ll see one.\u2019 He never advised me of no kind of rights at all. He told me, he said, \u2018If you want any help, you got to cooperate with me.\u2019 I said, \u2018I don\u2019t see why I have to cooperate with you when I haven\u2019t done anything. I\u2019ve been in bed with my wife.\u2019 . . . He told my wife, \u2018I\u2019m going to take him down to the city hall and I\u2019ll bring him right back.\u2019 He said he was carrying me down for investigation. ... I haven\u2019t seen no watch, no more than my wife\u2019s watch. . . I didn\u2019t have no watch in my wallet in the first place. ... I never admitted nothing to no one. \u2019 \u2019\nOn cross-examination Harris testified he was not struck; no one cursed him; the Sheriff did not speak disrespectfully; and the discussion was in normal tones.\nThe 'State offered as witnesses the three officers who went to the Harris home. The Sheriff\u2019s version was that the wife, who answered the door, was advised that they wanted to talk to her husband and that she invited them in the house; the Sheriff had known Harris\u2019 wife a number of years; Harris propped himself in bed and the Sheriff inquired where he had been during the night and with whom he came home; Harris replied that he had been to Dermott and had ridden back to Montieello with one Sonny Hall; the 'Sheriff asked to see the clothing he had worn during the night; Harris pointed to a pair of trousers on a hanger in the corner; inspection disclosed that they had not been recently worn; Harris was admonished to produce the right clothing; he got out of bed and started to the kitchen and the Sheriff and Harris\u2019 wife followed; Harris picked up a pair of trousers from a table and handed them to the Sheriff; blood was observed on the fly of the pants; when the Sheriff took the pants he felt a billfold in the pocket with a \u201cbulge\u201d in it. The bulge proved to be a lady\u2019s wristwatch. Harris\u2019 wife stated that it was not her watch; at that point the Sheriff told Harris the presence of the watch required \u201csome explaining\u201d; the Sheriff told Harris \u201che didn\u2019t have to tell me anything and that if he did it probably would be held against him in court\u201d; Harris said he w\u00e1s willing to tell him and explained that he received it from Orion 'Trotter; he admitted he was with Trotter at the time of the crime; that the two of them put Joyce Binns in Trotter\u2019s car and drove away; he said he drove the car bnt denied having raped the girl; the Sheriff then opened the door and called in the other two officers; in their presence he again advised Harris of his rights and asked Harris if he would repeat his statement.\nOfficers Newton and Griffin corroborated the testimony of Sheriff Towler. Officer Newton\u2019s testimony varied with that of Towler and Griffin with respect to Sheriff Towler having a private conference with Harris. Newton\u2019s best recollection was to the effect that all present heard the first conversation; however, he conceded that the lapse of time (four years) conld have well affected his recollection of details. The only difference of note is that Sheriff Towler made no reference to suggesting to Harris that he could talk to a lawyer; on the other hand, the other two officers testified they heard the Sheriff so advised Harris.\n2. The Incident at the City JaAl. After being questioned at his home, Harris was taken to the Monticello city jail at approximately six o\u2019clock of the same morning. There Officer Newton was placed in charge of the prisoner. Harris testified the cell was comfortable and he was not abused.\nJerry Wilson, a college senior and escort of Miss Binns, was treated for injuries received in resisting her assailants and was discharged. He learned of Harris\u2019 arrest in approximately two hours after Harris was jailed. Apparently on his own initiative he went to the jail to see if he could identify the accused. Jerry testified that he was admitted \u201creluctantly\u201d by Officer Newton.\n\u201c. . . I looked through the door at the defendant Harris. I asked him had he ever seen me before. He said, \u2018Yes, I saw you last night.\u2019\n\u201cQ. That was your conversation?\n\u201cA. Yes, it was. I asked him again if they planned what had happened and he said, \u2018No, we didn\u2019t.\u2019 \u201d\nThe only other statement Jerry recalled was by Officer Newton. As the two men were about to leave the jail, Newton advised Harris to stand away from the window \u201cfor his own safety.\u201d Officer Newton corroborated all of Jerry Wilson\u2019s testimony. The only variance in their versions of the incident was that Newton said he gave the admonition about Harris standing in front of the window before Harris\u2019 conversation with J erry.\nHarris gave a different version of the incidents at the jail. Summarizing, he said when he was brought to jail, Newton told him to \u201cstay away from the window if you don\u2019t want your head blowed off, because people are mad around here\u201d; shortly, Jerry Wilson came to the jail \u201cand was raising sand\u201d; Newton took Jerry by the arm and opened the door to where Harris and Jerry could see each other. Harris continued:\n\u201c. . . The white boy asked did I know him and I said, \u2018No, this is the first time I ever seen you.\u2019 He said, \u2018You don\u2019t know me from last night?\u2019 I said, \u2018How can I know you. I was at home.\u2019 . . . Officer Newton told me, lie said, \u2018Be sure and stay away from that window, because people around here is mad.\u2019\u201d\nIt was conceded that no \u201cwarnings\u201d were given Harris as a preface to the two questions propounded by Jerry Wilson. Officer Newton was in uniform and armed.\nWhen the voluntary nature of a confession is disputed on federal constitutional grounds, the weight ordinarily given to a factual determination by the trial judge cannot be applied. It becomes the duty of the appellate court \u201cto examine the entire record and make an independent determination of the ultimate issue of voluntariness.\u201d Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737 (1966). That does not mean that the findings of the trial judge must be shunned. They are entitled to considerable weight in resolving evidentiary conflicts and to respectful consideration on the crucial issue of voluntariness. However, that respect cannot be permitted to frustrate the independent responsibility of the appellate court to determine the voluntariness of a confession. See Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503, 515 (1963). Because of the recited requirements we have searched the entire record and narrated the essential testimony.\nThe prerequisites for the admission in evidence of any statements made by a defendant when he is in custody of officers are found in Boyd and Byrd v. State, 230 Ark. 991, 328 S. W. 2d 122 (1959). There is a presumption that it is involuntary; and the burden is on the State to show the statement to have been voluntary, that is, freely and understandably made without hope of reward or fear of punishment. In making those determinations the court looks \u201cto the whole situation and surroundings of the accused.\u201d Although Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), was subsequent to the defendant Harris\u2019 trial, the nonretroactivity of Miranda \u201cdoes not affect the dity of courts to consider claims that a statement was taken under circumstances which violate the standards of voluntariness which had begun to evolve long prior to our decisions in Miranda and Escobedo . . Davis v. North Carolina, supra.\nThe record in this case has been examined in light of all the cited precedents and we are convinced that the trial court was correct in holding Harris\u2019 statements to have been voluntary. Further, we have examined the cases, state and federal, cited by appellant. Those cases were reversed because confessions were tainted with such incidents as prolonged questioning, inspiring fear, questioning mentally retarded persons, and holding out hope of clemency. Appellant relies heavily on Payne v. State, 231 Ark. 727, 332 S. W. 2d 233 (1960); and Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560 (1958). In Payne v. Arkansas the court emphasized the totality of treatment of a mentally dull 19-year-old youth. He was arrested without a warrant, did not have a hearing before a magistrate, was not advised of any rights, held incommunicado for three days, denied food for long periods, and was told that a mob was approaching.\nA comparison of Harris\u2019 overall situation with that of Payne is appropriate. But first we must resolve the conflict in evidence. For three reasons we think the State\u2019s evidence is more credible: (1) To say that Harris, under his own testimony, ever became excited, would be without foundation; (2) he was contradicted in most of his accusations of mistreatment by from two to three witnesses; and (3) the trial judge is \u201cclosest to the trial scene and thus afforded the best opportunity to evaluate contradictory testimony.\u201d Haynes v. Washington, supra.\nHarris \u2019 age and education are not shown in the record. It does show him to have been a married man. The manner in which he conducted himself under examination leaves no doubt as to his mental alertness. Harris\u2019 arrest and the search of his apartment are discussed in Trotter and Harris v. Stephens, 241 F. Supp. 33 (1965). Harris attacked the legality of his arrest and the search. Judge Young rejected both points, and we think correctly so. \u00a1With reference to being advised before making any statement, three witnesses testified Harris was informed that he did not have to make any statement and that if he did, that statement could be used against him in court; and that after being so advised, Harris stated he was willing to explain his participation. Further, two witnesses testified that he was asked if he wanted to first talk to a lawyer. Unlike Payne, Harris made his statements in the course of brief questioning. There is no credible evidence of threatened mob violencebJEEarris was advised at the jail to stand away from the window for his own safety. That precaution could just as well have been motivated by the enormity of the crimes which .had been committed, namely, the armed robbery of two persons and the criminal assault of one of them. If Harris heard or saw a crowd he did not so testify. Officer Griffin was asked by Harris\u2019 counsel whether people were milling around outside. He answered, \u201cJust some people out there. I don\u2019t think there were too maily at that time.\u201d\nAppellant contends that his statements at the city jail were induced by threats of mob violence, and further that he was not advised of his right to remain silent. When Jerry Wilson, a private citizen as opposed to an officer, went to the jail to see Harris, it was for the purpose of identification. 'We have not been cited to any rule of law which would require that Harris be informed that Jerry was about to ask him a question. If Jerry had an intent at the time he entered the jail to ask a question, we are convinced that Officer Newton was not aware of it. In fact, Jerry requested \u201cto see the little Negro.\u201d Notwithstanding Harris testified Jerry came in \u201craising sand,\u201d no fear was aroused in Harris. He testified that he told Officer Newton to \u201clet him on in the cell.\u201d\nOther than questioning the voluntariness of Harris \u2019 admissions, only one other point is raised. Sheriff Tow-ler\u2019s death intervened between the jury trial in 1963 and the Denno hearing in 1967. The trial judge permitted the introduction of Sheriff Towler\u2019s testimony which was given at the trial. Harris was adequately represented at the 1963 trial and his counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the Sheriff. Harris\u2019 present counsel contends that his inability to cross-examine Sheriff Towler at the hearing deprives his client of due process. We are cited no authority. All the statutory requirements for the admission of testimony from a prior trial were present. The original transcript was introduced, the death of the witness was established, the defendant and his counsel were present at the 1963 trial, and they had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-713 (Repl. 1962).\nAffirmed.\nByrd, J., disqualified and not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "Lyle Brown, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "George Howard, for appellant.", "Joe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Albert HARRIS v. STATE of Arkansas\n5314\n425 S. W. 2d 293\nOpinion delivered March 11, 1968\n[Rehearing denied April 8, 1968.]\nGeorge Howard, for appellant.\nJoe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0314-01", "first_page_order": 338, "last_page_order": 347 }