{
  "id": 8717608,
  "name": "James EATON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eaton v. State",
  "decision_date": "1973-09-10",
  "docket_number": "CR 73-85",
  "first_page": "45",
  "last_page": "51",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 Ark. 45"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "498 S.W.2d 648"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 434,
    "char_count": 9016,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.831,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30482935491605884
    },
    "sha256": "dd1b6824744b1da5a1bbba4cd61005f986eff25b785637c4debb54de5a941967",
    "simhash": "1:4ff69021f2ec0c7b",
    "word_count": 1612
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:11.540726+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James EATON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "J. Fred Jones, Justice.\nJames Eaton was charged on information filed by the prosecuting attorney with delivering to Johnnie Rivers a quantity of marijuana in excess of one ounce with the intent to unlawfully deliver and cause same to be unlawfully delivered to other persons. He was convicted at a jury trial and was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary with four years suspended.\nOn appeal to this court Eaton contends that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal or in not granting his motion for a new trial on the ground that the only evidence against the defendant was an uncorroborated oral statement made to police officers in the course of investigation. We agree with the appellant that his conviction must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\nIt appears from the record that in the course of investigating the marijuana traffic among students at Arkansas Polytechnic College at Russellville, six bags or \u201clids\u201d of the substance were found in the possession of Tommy Gooch. Gooch implicated Johnnie Rivers as the person from whom he obtained the marijuana. Rivers entered a plea of guilty to a charge of selling to Gooch and apparently Rivers implicated Eaton as the person from whom he obtained the marijuana. Eaton was arrested and his house was searched by the police officers and he was subsequently charged as above set out.\nThe record indicates that the state intended to use Rivers as a witness against Eaton and in corroboration of statements made by Eaton to the police officers but, at the trial, Rivers denied that he had ever told the prosecuting attorney or anyone else that he acquired marijuana from Eaton. At some point in the proceedings Rivers\u2019 parents employed Eaton\u2019s attorney to represent Rivers and when Rivers was asked the direct question as to whether he had in fact purchased marijuana from Eaton, he refused to answer the question on advice of his and Eaton\u2019s attorney as in violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination.\nDetective Jerry Snow was then called as a witness for the state and the prosecuting attorney requested an exclusionary hearing in chambers. At the in-chambers hearing Detective Snow testified that after Eaton was arrested, Eaton stated in his presence that he had sold ten lids of marijuana to Rivers for $10 per lid, but that Eaton refused to say from whom he obtained the marijuana. Detective Snow said he reduced the statement to writing but that Eaton refused to sign the written statement without his attorney being present. The full statement as written out by Detective Snow appears as follows:\n\u201cJames Eaton. About a week and a half ago \u2014 I don\u2019t remember the exact date\u2014 I sold Johnnie Rivers ten lids of Marijuana. I sold it to Rivers for $10.00 a lid. Rivers didn\u2019t pay me then, but he was to pay me later. I figured he was going to sell it, but I didn\u2019t know who. I would rather not say who I bought the marijuana from.\u201d\nThe record of the in-chambers hearing then becomes somewhat confusing and appears as follows:\n\u201cMR. LAWS: I think it is obvious he refused to sign the statement right at the t\u00edme. It is not a voluntary statement.\nTHE COURT: The Court will admit it. Save your exceptions.\nMR. LAWS: For the purpose of the record and without waiving my client\u2019s rights, this is an exclusionary hearing we are in, and I can ask him questions without waiving any of my rights.\nTHE COURT: Let\u2019s cross one bridge at a time please.\nMR. LAWS: Are you going to refuse to allow me to have my client explain the circumstances surrounding this statement?\nTHE COURT: No, sir. If he denies the statement, and I am assuming that is what he is fixing to do.\nMR. LAWS: No, he is not going to deny the statement, but I have a right to show whether or not the statement is voluntary and have something for the Court to pass on.\nTHE COURT: Do you want me to do it out here?\nMR. STREETT: I thought you were denying it. We have no objections to putting it on.\nTHE COURT: If it is a denial, let\u2019s go. If it is something for the Court to pass on, let\u2019s go.\nMR. LAWS: It is a question whether or not this was a voluntary statement.\nTHE COURT: That\u2019s a question for the jury.\nMR. STREETT: We have no objections to the Court passing on whether or not it was voluntary.\nTHE COURT: I have admitted the statement.\nMR. LAWS: Are you going to admit the statement without testimony?\nTHE COURT: I have admitted the statement. From here on out then if there is something to show it was involuntary, it is a question of fact.\nMR. STREETT: We have no objections. I thought he was denying making the statement. If he makes a statement it was under coercion, or \u2014\nMR. LAWS: We feel like the facts surrounding the confession it is whether or not the Court \u2014 especially due to the fact that the law requires the Court to look at a signed confession, and \u2014\nTHE COURT: All right.\nMR. LAWS: Without waiving rights, other than the circumstances not surrounding the confession, I would like to call my client.\u201d\nJames Eaton then testified at the in-chambers hearing and denied making the statement at all. He said he was shocked and confused at his arrest; that the officers advised him it would be better for him If he would \u201ccome clean\u201d; that they threatened to \u201chang him from the highest tree\u201d and make an example of him. On cross-examination Eaton testified in part as follows:\n\u201cQ. You did make the statement that has been referred to here?\nA. If I did\u2014\nQ. Did you?\nA. No, sir, I did not.\nQ. You didn\u2019t? Are you saying that under oath today? That you didn\u2019t make the statement that has been referred to here?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. Do you recall having your rights read to you?\nA. Yes, but I didn\u2019t understand them.\nQ. What was it you didn\u2019t understand?\nA. I didn\u2019t understand any of it really.\nQ. You said at the time you did, did you not, that you understood?\nA. I don\u2019t recall saying it.\u201d\nAt the close of the in-chambers hearing the trial court ruled as follows:\n\u201cThe Court is going to admit the statement. Save your exceptions. The whole thing in chambers here becomes a question of fact for the jury to determine. It is a question of fact whether they took it or didn\u2019t take it.\u201d\nDetective Snow then testified in open court in part as follows:\n\u201cMr. Eaton stated that he had sold ten lids of marijuana to Johnnie Rivers, that Johnnie Rivers had not paid him for this marijuana, that it was to be paid for later, that he did not know what he was going to do with it, or where he was going to sell it, that he would rather not tell us where he had obtained it himself.\u201d\nDetective Sergeant William Briscoe also testified in corroboration of Detective Snow\u2019s testimony as to the statement made to them by Eaton. The appellant James Eaton did not testify before the jury.\nIt is clear from the record before us that the prosecuting attorney was taken by surprise at Rivers\u2019 denial of having previously implicated Eaton as the one from whom he purchased marijuana and by his refusal to testify under advice from his and Eaton\u2019s attorney as to whether he had made such purchase from Eaton. The record is not clear as to the basis for Rivers\u2019 fear of self-incrimination by testifying as to whether he purchased marijuana from Eaton. Rivers had been convicted on a guilty plea of selling marijuana to Gooch and his and Eaton\u2019s attorney explained Rivers\u2019 refusal to testify in the following language:\n\u201cFirst of all, after Mr. Rivers\u2019 parents and Mr. Streett had a little misunderstanding the other day they came to me, as an attorney, and asked me to represent them. As such, they gave me information and asked me whether or not their son had the right to take the Fifth Amendment. He pled guilty and was convicted in Pope County of selling part of this marijuana he got from my client.\nTHE COURT: This man was convicted of selling?\nMR. LAWS: He wasn\u2019t charged with purchasing from Eaton. He was charged and convicted of selling a part of it to somebody else.\u201d (Emphasis added).\nThe record indicates that other pertinent evidence would have been available to the state had the state\u2019s attorney known that Rivers would refuse to testify on advice of his and Eaton\u2019s attorney. But as the record now stands, there was no evidence presented connecting Eaton with the sale or delivery of marijuana to Rivers except the testimony of Detective Snow and Briscoe that Eaton had told them he had made such sale.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2115 (Repl. 1964) reads as follows:\n\u201cA confession of a defendant, unless made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that such an offense was committed.\u201d\nIn the case at bar there was no evidence that marijuana was sold or delivered to Rivers by anyone. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "J. Fred Jones, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ike Allen Laws Jr., for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Philip M. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James EATON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 73-85\n498 S.W. 2d 648\nOpinion delivered September 10, 1973\nIke Allen Laws Jr., for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Philip M. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0045-01",
  "first_page_order": 67,
  "last_page_order": 73
}