{
  "id": 8722013,
  "name": "Cecil WALTERS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walters v. State",
  "decision_date": "1979-10-15",
  "docket_number": "CR 79-104",
  "first_page": "699",
  "last_page": "702",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 Ark. 699"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "587 S.W.2d 831"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616810
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0042-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 Ark. 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1621186
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/258/0512-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "390 U.S. 377",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6170914
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/390/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "409 U.S. 188",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6173155
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/409/0188-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "406 U.S. 682",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6173132
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/406/0682-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 Ark. 614",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1627409
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/253/0614-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 4675,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.9,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.431403558356252e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48409250886827765
    },
    "sha256": "6140bc3d0c614f639f1cc33a6c578e38de774c669aadb05771d2135b83135445",
    "simhash": "1:49ea2786be34f164",
    "word_count": 760
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:50.628261+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cecil WALTERS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nFollowing our reversal in Walters v. State, an unpublished opinion dated February 27, 1978, a jury convicted appellant of assault with intent to kill and robbery with the use of a firearm. He was sentenced to twenty-one years on the assault charge, twenty-one years on the robbery charge, and fifteen years for having employed a firearm in the commission of a felony. Appellant\u2019s sole ground for reversal is that the trial court erred in holding that the in-court identification of him was not tainted by an imper-missibily conducted lineup.\nHe argues that the lineup procedure was tainted because his sixth amendment right to counsel was denied. Before the lineup and after the appellant had been advised of his rights, he requested that a named attorney be present at the lineup. Appellant was unable to locate the attorney, and the officers offered to contact an attorney with the public defenders office. Appellant refused the offer. The lineup was delayed a half hour past the scheduled time and then conducted without appellant\u2019s requested attorney being present.\nWe have held that the accused has no per se right to counsel at a lineup which is conducted prior to the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings against him. King v. State, 253 Ark. 614, 487 S.W.2d 596 (1972). There, as in this case, the lineup followed appellant\u2019s arrest and preceded the filing of formal charges against him. We held that the lineup was not a \u201ccriminal prosecution\u201d at which appellant was constitutionally entitled to assistance of counsel, citing Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972). Here, the lineup was conducted nearly two weeks prior to the filing of a felony information against the appellant. Clearly, the fact that appellant was without counsel at the lineup did not render it impermissibly conducted or tainted.\nNeither do we agree that the lineup procedure was im-permissibly suggestive. It is well established that we must consider the \u201ctotality of circumstances\u201d to determine whether a lineup was conducted in such a manner that there was \u201ca very substantial likelihood of irreparable misiden-tification.\u201d Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), citing Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968). See also Pollard v. State, 258 Ark. 512, 527 S.W.2d 627 (1975); and Hinton v. State, 260 Ark. 42, 537 S.W.2d 800 (1976).\nHere the six-man lineup was conducted the day following the appellant\u2019s arrest and approximately three weeks after the 1973 robbery. Appellant asserts that a photograph of the lineup reveals that he was the shortest person. It appears he was about two inches shorter than the tallest one. At the trial, however, one of the detectives testified that the apparent discrepancy was partially due to the angle from which the photograph was taken. The detective stated that one of the men in the lineup was approximately the same height as the appellant but noted that \u201cit appears in the photograph\u201d that appellant was the shortest. Even so, there is no evidence to indicate that any of the three victim-employees, who identified him, were uncertain in their identification of the appellant. Even if there was some height variation among the participants in the lineup, and even if the appellant was the shortest, there is no evidence that he was identified due to this discrepancy.\nAppellant specifically questions the reliability of the identification at the lineup by a witness who later identified him at trial. It is true that prior to the lineup, the witness viewed \u201cmug shots\u201d or photographs of a number of individuals, some of whom appeared in the lineup. She could not remember if she identified a photograph of appellant. She further testified at the suppression hearing that she was an employee-victim of the robbery, was able to get a \u201cgood look\u201d at the appellant, recognized the appellant because she \u201cremembered his facial features,\u201d and could also identify him independent of the lineup. The officers did not attempt to influence her thinking or focus the lineup procedure on any particular individual. In short, the record reflects that the witness was able to positively identify the appellant. We cannot agree with the appellant\u2019s contention that the lineup was impermissibly conducted or suggestive. We affirm the holding of the trial court that the identification of appellant was not tainted by an impermissibly conducted lineup.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Achor, Public Defender, by: Jeffrey Rosenzweig, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cecil WALTERS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 79-104\n587 S.W. 2d 831\nOpinion delivered October 15, 1979\nJohn W. Achor, Public Defender, by: Jeffrey Rosenzweig, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0699-01",
  "first_page_order": 725,
  "last_page_order": 728
}