{
  "id": 1624204,
  "name": "Vedell DICKSON Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dickson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1973-04-16",
  "docket_number": "CR 73-1",
  "first_page": "250",
  "last_page": "253",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "254 Ark. 250"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "492 S.W.2d 895"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "244 Ark. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722503
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/244/0676-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 414,
    "char_count": 5700,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.843,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.99626041707503e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42282001769215116
    },
    "sha256": "bdaeffff229d59abcc3a3cb882443d225e8fa28237d63cb1888798dffc0bc373",
    "simhash": "1:27c30eb1e0ace092",
    "word_count": 1006
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:26:13.512056+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Harris, C.J., and Fogleman, J., dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Vedell DICKSON Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe appellant was charged by information with having committed an assault upon Marie Robinson, Betty Davis, and Phyliss Haynes, \u201cas employees of Simmons First National Bank,\u201d with the felonious intent to rob those persons. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-609 (Repl. 1964). Dickson appeals from a verdict and judgment finding him guilty and sentencing him to imprisonment for one year.\nThe State proved that Dickson and a confederate, Felton Adams, planned to rob a branch bank at a shopping center in Pine Bluff. Dickson contends, however, that the plan was not actually carried far enough to constitute an assault with the intent to rob. (See Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1201.) That contention must be sustained.\nOnly two eyewitnesses to the attempted robbery testified. Felton Adams testified that on July 8, 1971, he and Dickson drove to the shopping center in Dickson\u2019s car, with the intention of robbing the bank. Dickson was to wait in the car while Adams held up the bank employees.\nThe bank was not yet open when Adams reached it at about 8:00 a.m. Wearing a mask and gloves and armed with a pistol, Adams concealed himself behind a hedge to await the opening of the bank. When the three tellers arrived they ,saw Adams and made an outcry. At that point, Adams, in his own words: \u201cJumped up, shot, and ran.\u201d The shot was aimed upward and struck the roof of the bank. Adams ran back to Dickson\u2019s car, apparently firing two shots as he ran, and the two men drove away.\nMarie Robinson, who alone among the three tellers was called as a witness, gave substantially the same version of the occurrence as Adams had given. Miss Robinson had waited in her car for the other two tellers to arrive. The three then walked toward the bank together. They paused to examine the hedge or shrubbery, which had turned yellow and seemed to be dying. One or both of the others saw Adams and yelled that it was a holdup. Adams jumped up, and for an instant he and Miss Robinson confronted each other. Adams shot the pistol up in the air. According to Miss Robinson: \u201cI then ran, and as I was running I was looking behind me, and he then fired two more shots. They were wild. They weren\u2019t necessarily aimed at me, but they were toward my direction.\u201d Adams ran toward a parking lot in the shopping center.\nThe only conclusion to be drawn from the proof is that, although Dickson and Adams meant to rob the bank, Adams abandoned the plan and ran away when he was discovered in hiding before the bank had opened. There was no demand for money or any other conduct on Adams\u2019 part amounting to an assault upon the three women with the intention of robbing them. The judgment must therefore be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.\nTwo of the appellant\u2019s other points for reversal must be mentioned, for they may arise upon a retrial. The State was allowed to introduce a glove, two pistols, and other articles found in the course of a search of Dickson\u2019s home. The only objection in the court below \u2014 an objection not renewed on appeal \u2014 had to do with the validity of the officers\u2019 search warrant. It is now argued for the first time that some of the articles were not shown to be connected with the offense. Of course upon a new trial the burden will be on the State to show that its proof is competent and relevant.\nWe find no merit in appellant\u2019s insistence that a police officer should not have been permitted to quote statements made by the appellant before he was given a Miranda warning. Immediately after the occurrence the police received a description of the getaway car, which had a Colorado license plate. Officer Beatty discovered a car fitting the description and went to Dickson\u2019s apartment to inquire about it. He testified that he asked Dickson if he owned the car. Dickson said he did. Beatty then asked if Dickson had been anywhere that morning in the car. Dickson said he had not. Beatty also asked if Dickson had lent the car to anyone. Dickson said that he had not. Officer Beatty testified that the hood of the car was still warm when he checked it.\nOfficer Beatty\u2019s testimony was admissible. When the officer went to Dickson\u2019s apartment his purpose was to investigate rather than to accuse. Dickson was not yet in custody. As we said in Stout v. State, 244 Ark. 676, 426 S.W. 2d 800 (1968): \u201cThe officers\u2019 investigation had not reached an accusatory stage. Miranda warnings are required when the investigation reaches custodial interrogation of a suspect.\u201d That point had not yet been reached in the case at bar.\nReversed.\nHarris, C.J., and Fogleman, J., dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "John A. Fogleman, Justice,\ndissenting. I respectfully dissent because I do not believe that the court can say that the only conclusion a reasonable mind might reach under the evidence is that Adams abandoned the plan to rob the tellers at the bank. I think that a reasonable inference could be drawn that Adams arose from his hiding place, confronted the teller and drew his pistol as an overt act in perpetrating the robbery. Thus, there would be a jury question whether an overt act had been committed. That being the case, I would affirm the judgment of the lower court. The confederate\u2019s testimony that he was in shock was certainly not binding on the jury as to whether he had abandoned his intent or on the question whether he committed an overt act with the intent to effectuate the plan.\nI am authorized to state that the Chief Justice joins in this dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "John A. Fogleman, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Irvin P. Andrews and George Howard Jr., for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: O. H. Hargraves, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Vedell DICKSON Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 73-1\n492 S.W. 2d 895\nOpinion delivered April 16, 1973\nIrvin P. Andrews and George Howard Jr., for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: O. H. Hargraves, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0250-01",
  "first_page_order": 272,
  "last_page_order": 275
}