{ "id": 1750178, "name": "Odell WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Watson v. State", "decision_date": "1982-10-18", "docket_number": "CR 82-39", "first_page": "197", "last_page": "203", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "277 Ark. 197" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "640 S.W.2d 447" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "267 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1719868 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/267/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "274 Ark. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1755063 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/274/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 Ark. 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1750226 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/277/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 Ark. 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1753662 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/275/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "629 S.W.2d 302", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1753690, 1753612 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/275/0356-01", "/ark/275/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 Ark. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1753612 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/275/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 Ark. 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1753667 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/275/0016-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ark. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1619141 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 2, "case_paths": [ "/ark/259/0478-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 528, "char_count": 9446, "ocr_confidence": 0.82, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.351004668085049e-08, "percentile": 0.44120506639576285 }, "sha256": "5d509b06bab01b1dc5877a7bd2c1cfc9417be8db9d354e483ac16a99790cd898", "simhash": "1:5064ee34ad2de036", "word_count": 1650 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:10.927944+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Adkisson, C.J., and Turtle and Hays, JJ., dissent.", "Hays, J., joins in this dissent." ], "parties": [ "Odell WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nOdell Watson was convicted of rape in the Pulaski County Circuit Court and sentenced to forty years in prison. He argues three reasons for reversal: First, that his confession was not admissible; second, that a mistrial should have been granted when a prosecuting witness volunteered prejudicial testimony; and, finally, that the court refused to permit evidence of prior sexual conduct of the victim. We find no prejudicial errors and affirm the conviction.\nWhen Watson was first questioned he denied the rape. Then within three hours he confessed that he forced the victim to have sexual intercourse with him. Watson argues that since he denied any wrongdoing before he signed a confession, we should interpret the law to be that once a person makes such an exculpatory statement, he cannot be requestioned. While no authority is cited for that proposition, it is argued that the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), in spirit, holds this. Watson also argues, without citing any authority, that the form he signed acknowledging and waiving his rights violated his rights because it did not make clear that an accused can waive one or more of his rights without making a total waiver. We find no merit to either argument. Watson made no attempt to assert any of his rights. He never asked for a lawyer and never indicated his desire to remain silent. Watson was read his rights as well as being allowed to read the form before being questioned. We consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a statement is voluntary and, in this case, we find no basis, factual or legal, to hold his statement involuntary. Branam v. State, 275 Ark. 16, 627 S.W.2d 8 (1982); Lockett v. State, 275 Ark. 338, 629 S.W.2d 302 (1982).\nWatson\u2019s second argument is that a deputy sheriff volunteered a highly prejudicial statement during cross-examination. He said that the doctor who examined the victim told him that the victim had been choked. We quote verbatim from the transcript the relevant testimony and statements by counsel and the court:\nQ Detective Means, how long have you been a detective with the Sheriff\u2019s Office?\nA Since the first of this year.\nQ And is this your first case in Circuit Court?\nA Yes, ma\u2019am.\nQ Okay. And did you have occasion to talk with Odell in your office. That was on May the 11th, 1981, wasn\u2019t it?\nA Yes, ma\u2019am.\nQ And on May the 9th, two days before, you had talked to [the victim] and took a statement from her?\nA Yes, ma\u2019am.\nQ And you knew that she was saying something about being choked, didn\u2019t you? [Emphasis added.]\nA Yes, ma\u2019am.\nQ So, to you it was important to know about whether she was choked or was not choked. Isn\u2019t that correct? [Emphasis added.]\nA Yes, ma\u2019am.\nQ So, when you talked to Odell, you really wanted to know about that because it was important to you, wasn\u2019t it?\nA I wanted Odell to tell me about it. The doctor had already told me that he felt she was choked because of bruises on her neck or soreness on her neck. [Emphasis added.]\nDEFENSE COUNSEL:\nI would like to ask for a mistrial at this time. I think it\u2019s prejudicial for him to say what the doctor said.\nTHE COURT:\nYou can argue it to the jury. It was in response to your question. And you\u2019ve got a stipulation in the record that the doctor said he didn\u2019t find anything. You can argue this to the witness, if you want to.\nDEFENSE COUNSEL:\nI think it\u2019s prejudicial. Would you instruct the jury that the doctor did not say that.\nTH\u00c9 COURT:\nIt would be a comment on the evidence.\nDEFENSE COUNSEL:\nIt\u2019s not in evidence. That is not the evidence.\nTHE COURT:\nYou may take this witness and say, \u2018It\u2019s funny that the doctor would say that to you because he didn\u2019t say that in his testimony. We\u2019ve got a stipulation to that effect.\u2019 And read the stipulation.\nIt\u2019s a question of fact now. It\u2019s a matter of credibility of whether he really did or did not but his testimony is he didn\u2019t find any evidence of bruises to the throat.\nTo instruct would be comment, I think. To admonish would be comment and I think it would bring more attention to it that it deserves. So, I think you better just go ahead.\nThe victim had testified that Watson had choked her and in his statement Watson admitted that he had choked her. The doctor who examined the victim did not testify but instead by stipulation the doctor\u2019s statement was read to the jury. In it the doctor stated he had checked the victim\u2019s neck region and although she had complained of pain and tenderness, he found no \u201cvisible abnormalities.\u201d But he qualified that by saying bruises would not always become apparent within several hours and that bruising to black people is less pronounced and less visible than in white people. The victim was a black woman.\nThree times in questions, counsel mentioned the word \u201cchoked\u201d to the officer. This was during cross-examination. We cannot say the court was clearly wrong in making its decision that the defense counsel invited the answer. In the case of Robinson v. State, 275 Ark. 473, 631 S.W.2d 294 (1982), we upheld the court in denying a mistrial for a very similar reason:\nWhen the appellant injects the matter into the case by questions on cross-examination, he cannot complain of what develops. Since appellant asked the specific question, the officer could truthfully answer it. The granting of a threshold motion to prevent certain testimony does not require a witness to conceal the truth in order to respond to a question by the moving party.\nWe recently affirmed this principle. Sanders v. State, 277 Ark. 159, 639 S.W.2d 733 (1982). Even if it was error it was certainly not of the magnitude to require a mistrial. It may well have required an admonition but no admonition was requested. Abraham v. State, 274 Ark. 506, 625 S.W.2d 518 (1981).\nThe other alleged error is that the trial court refused to allow Watson to testify that he was told by his co-defendant, Cedric Garner, that Garner had had sexual relations with the victim. The defense argues that the question was relevant to Watson\u2019s \u201cstate of mind\u201d and, so, relevant to his defense of consent. The court ruled at a pretrial hearing that it would admit evidence pertaining to prior sexual relations the victim had with either Watson or co-defendant Garner. But that did not mean inadmissible evidence would be received. The question was not asked.of Garner. It was a question asking Watson for a pure hearsay answer and, therefore, violated the rules of evidence. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1810.1 (Repl. 1977); see Bobo v. State, 267 Ark. 1, 289 S.W.2d 5 (1970).\nAffirmed.\nAdkisson, C.J., and Turtle and Hays, JJ., dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice." }, { "text": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice,\ndissenting. I dissent from the majority opinion because the deputy sheriff gave a highly prejudicial unresponsive answer to a question asked by the defense.\nThe parties stipulated what the doctor\u2019s testimony would be at trial. He was excused from appearing on that basis.\nTo have the deputy sheriff volunteer that the doctor had expressed an opinion contrary to his stipulated statement was highly prejudicial under the facts of this case.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice," }, { "text": "John I. Turtle, Justice,\ndissenting. I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe a mistrial should have been granted. I have no problem with the majority\u2019s holding regarding the rights waiver form. I would like to say that the rights form used by the Pulaski County Sheriff\u2019s Department in this case is the best form which I have observed during my tenure on this court. However, in my opinion, the incident involving the officer\u2019s testimony is so clearly manipulative on the part of the officer that I think the misconduct requires the case to be tried again. In order to focus on the problem in this case I will set forth the pertinent question and answer as reported from the trial:\nQ. So, when you talked to Odell, you really wanted to know about that because it was important to you, wasn\u2019t it?\nA. I wanted Odell to tell me about it. The doctor had already told me that he felt that she was choked because of the bruises on her neck or soreness on her neck.\nThis answer is completely unresponsive to the question and, in my opinion, was the result of deliberation on the part of the officer making the uninvited and unresponsive statement. The doctor\u2019s statement had already been entered into the record through stipulation between the parties. At no point in the stipulation did the doctor state that he found bruises on her neck or that he felt she had been choked. Not only was the officer\u2019s answer not responsive but it was an apparent attempt to impeach the stipulation which had settled the matter so far as the doctor\u2019s testimony was concerned. To allow such questionable and prejudicial information to come before the jury is to deny the appellant his rights to a fair trial. It also does a disservice to the law enforcement profession to think that one of their members is not bound by the rules which govern the rest of us. The only remedy, upon proper motion, is to retry the case. Haight v. State, 259 Ark. 478, 533 S.W.2d 510 (1976).\nHays, J., joins in this dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "John I. Turtle, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, and Sandra Berry, Deputy Public Defender, by: Arthur Allen, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Matthew Wood Fleming, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Odell WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 82-39\n640 S.W.2d 447\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 18, 1982\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, and Sandra Berry, Deputy Public Defender, by: Arthur Allen, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Matthew Wood Fleming, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0197-01", "first_page_order": 217, "last_page_order": 223 }