{ "id": 1619099, "name": "Sammy A. WEEMS and Doyle OWEN v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Weems v. State", "decision_date": "1976-03-29", "docket_number": "75-147", "first_page": "532", "last_page": "535", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "259 Ark. 532" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "534 S.W.2d 753" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "236 Ark. 878", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1681303 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "426" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/236/0878-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 304, "char_count": 4117, "ocr_confidence": 0.834, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.1310398737886276e-08, "percentile": 0.32421600641581805 }, "sha256": "5a1ea15bdd3e7149edd1a2f07fd9d6cf143ca9a66da845562b9ced0aa1be01c5", "simhash": "1:fb6ebc4a324eac46", "word_count": 715 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:09.193956+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Holt, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "Sammy A. WEEMS and Doyle OWEN v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Otis H. Turner, Special Justice.\nThis appeal is from a conviction of each of Appellants by a Prairie County Jury on charges of arson and conspiracy.\nThe transcript on this appeal is limited to proceedings transpiring after conclusion of all the evidence and Appellant asserts as error two narrow issues.\nTrial of this cause began on June 16, 1975, and sometime in late afternoon on June 19, the case was submitted to the jury. Being unable to reach a verdict, Court was recessed until the morning of June 20th. The jury retired on that morning to resume its deliberation and after some three hours, reported deadlocked at 10-2, with no indication whether the numerical majority was for conviction or acquittal.\nAfter recess for lunch and prior to resumption of deliberation, the following exchange occurred between the Court, the Foreman of the jury and Counsel for defendants:\n\u201cFOREMAN: Sir, what are the penalties for arson?\nTHE COURT: . . . Not less than one and no more than ten years. Would Counsel approach the bench? (at Bench and out of hearing of jury) would you like me to instruct them that while the Court is not bound to follow the recommendations, that should they return a verdict, they can recommend anything thay want to by interlineation?\nCOUNSEL: . . . Alright.\nTHE COURT: . . . Do you want me to, at the same time, instruct them that, if they agree on guilt and cannot agree on punishment, the Court will receive such a verdict?\nCOUNSEL: I don\u2019t want you to.\nTHE COURT: I kinda thought you wouldn\u2019t, (to Jury) It has been agreed by Counsel that the Court might instruct you to this effect. While the Court is not bound to follow a recommendation that a jury makes, the jury does have the right, if you choose, to make any recommendation that you want to on a verdict form, simply by interlining anything ... if you have any other questions, we can take them up now.\nFOREMAN: We are not bound to that are we, to fill in the years, number of years in the penalty?\nTHE COURT: Now will Counsel approach the bench? (at bench) There isn\u2019t but one way to answer that question and I didn\u2019t invite it.\nCOUNSEL: No, but I am going to have to object if you answer it.\nTHE COURT: . . . Overrule, (to Jury) The answer to your question is this: Under the law, in the State of Arkansas, if a jury cannot agree on a punishment but can agree on guilt, a trial Judge may receive such a verdict and then he fixes the punishment . . .\nFOREMAN: if we fix the penalty, is that to be unanimous, too?\nTHE COURT: Right ...\u201d\nAfter some three hours of further deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of guilt as to both defendants, without recommendation as to punishment.\nThis instruction by the trial Court at a time prior to a finding of guilty by the jury, and over timely objection, constitutes reversible error.\nThe Arkansas Statute on this point provides that \u201cWhen a jury find a verdict of guilty, and fail to agree on the punishment to be inflicted . . . the Court shall assess and declare the punishment . . . \u201d. Ark. Stat. Ann. Sec. 43-2306.\nIn considering when it would be proper to so instruct the jury, this Court, in Ward v. State, 236 Ark. 878, 370 S.W. 2d 425, 426 (1963), laid down the following rule while holding that submission otherwise would be error:\n\u201cThus, it appears, we have not previously announced any required rule in this regard to guide the trial Courts. After careful consideration, we now hold that the jury should not be told initially they can let the Court impose the punishment but should be told only after they report they have reached a verdict of guilty but are unable to agree on the punishment to be imposed.\u201d\nSince a reversal is dictated by the untimely giving of the instruction, it is not necessary to consider Appellants \u2019 second point for reversal.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nHolt, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "Otis H. Turner, Special Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Reinberger, Eilbott, Smith & Staten, for appellants.", "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Terry R. Kirkpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Sammy A. WEEMS and Doyle OWEN v. STATE of Arkansas\n75-147\n534 S.W. 2d 753\nOpinion delivered March 29, 1976\nReinberger, Eilbott, Smith & Staten, for appellants.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Terry R. Kirkpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0532-01", "first_page_order": 560, "last_page_order": 563 }