{
  "id": 8721186,
  "name": "Joseph HORNER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Horner v. State",
  "decision_date": "1973-11-05",
  "docket_number": "CR 73-117",
  "first_page": "426",
  "last_page": "428",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 Ark. 426"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "501 S.W.2d 217"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "226 Ark. 581",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722964
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/226/0581-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3164,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3849617572011903e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2751560033036675
    },
    "sha256": "47f0fcb9154b07043c53d1f00a8c3012ef414ceb44e984a2bc6178a2f57280c5",
    "simhash": "1:35f1d030b4cbf5fb",
    "word_count": 525
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:11.540726+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph HORNER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lyle Brown, Justice.\nAppellant was convicted of burglary, and of robbery, growing out of the same incident, and was sentenced to five years on each charge. A second person similarly charged entered a plea of guilty. For reversal it is contended that the court erred in admitting statements made by appellant to the sheriff anil another to the prosecuting attorney.\nAppellant made an incriminating oral statement to the sheriff on the day of his arrest. It is appellant\u2019s contention the State did not establish that appellant was given the Miranda warnings. The sheriff testified he first advised appellant of his constitutional rights but did not elaborate, that is, he did not specify the particular rights of which appellant was advised. Counsel for appellant did not on cross-examination ask the sheriff to list the particular rights given. Appellant offered no testimony on the point. We know of no case authority which requires an officer to particularize the constitutional rights given unless he is asked to do so on cross-examination, or, if deemed necessary, on rebuttal.\nWith respect to a written statement given the prosecuting attorney it is again asserted that the State did not establish that adequate warnings under Miranda were given. A few days after appellant\u2019s interview with the sheriff, appellant was taken before the prosecuting attorney. A criminal investigator from the sheriff\u2019s office accompanied appellant to the prosecutor\u2019s office. That officer testified that appellant was there advised of his constitutional rights. There was no cross-examination on the point and no evidence was offered to refute the testimony of the officer.\nThe other objection here made to the introduction of the statement taken by the prosecuting attorney is based on Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-915 (Repl. 1964):\nIn all cases where two (2) or more persons are jointly or otherwise concerned in the commission of any crime or misdemeanor, either of such persons may be sworn as a witness in relation to such crime or misdemeanor, but the testimony given by such witness shall in no instance be used against him in any criminal prosecution for the same offense.\nThe contention is without merit because we have held that the recited statute \u201capplies only to proceedings before a grand jury.\u201d Rhea v. State, 226 Ark. 581, 291 S.W. 2d 505 (1956). In Rhea we also said:\nThe statute was enacted as \u00a7 67 of Chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes of 1838. This chapter relates to criminal procedure and, as may be readily seen from the table of contents which follows its title, is subdivided to conform t\u00f3 the various steps involved in a criminal proceeding. Sections 59 through 77 define the procedure to be observed by grand juries. When \u00a7 67 is read together with the sections that immediately precede and follow it there can be no doubt that it pertains only to testimony taken in the course of a grand jury investigation.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lyle Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeff Duty, for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty, Gen. by: O. H. Hargraves, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph HORNER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 73-117\n501 S.W. 2d 217\nOpinion delivered November 5, 1973\n[Rehearing denied December 10, 1973.]\nJeff Duty, for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty, Gen. by: O. H. Hargraves, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0426-01",
  "first_page_order": 448,
  "last_page_order": 450
}