{
  "id": 1748254,
  "name": "Gary Wayne FULLER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fuller v. State",
  "decision_date": "1983-02-28",
  "docket_number": "CR 82-140",
  "first_page": "450",
  "last_page": "453",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "278 Ark. 450"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "646 S.W.2d 700"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "611 S.W.2d 98",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 Ark. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1174846
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/272/0005-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678885
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0293-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "274 Ark. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1754985
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/274/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 Ark. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1755062
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/274/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 Ark. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1174905
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/272/0019-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 377,
    "char_count": 5327,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.833,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2323874366141833e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7791523752929225
    },
    "sha256": "40850308e6f593b1537d0aa085223ef1f4f6abbbd4053e7454560405ce160d1d",
    "simhash": "1:0bb6aa2e741418b2",
    "word_count": 899
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:23.352095+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gary Wayne FULLER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.\nAppellant, Gary Wayne Fuller, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. At trial, a statement given by appellant to the Pulaski County Sheriff\u2019s Office was introduced into evidence. Appellant\u2019s primary contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting the statement into evidence because it was not voluntarily given. We affirm.\nTestimony at trial revealed the facts leading up to the murder. Appellant had dated a woman named Theda Balfour Miller about four years and they had had a child. At the time of the murder, however, Theda and the child were living with Lawrence Goodson, the deceased, at Theda\u2019s mother\u2019s house in Southwest Little Rock. On September 22, 1980, appellant telephoned Theda, wanting to take the child to the fair. It is unclear whether appellant ever spoke with Theda, however, it is undisputed that he and the deceased got into a heated argument over the phone. Later that evening appellant and some of his friends drove over to Theda\u2019s house. Appellant got out of the car, taking one of his friend\u2019s shotguns with him. He crept up to the bedroom window, saw the deceased, and fired several shots. Appellant\u2019s friends testified that appellant came back to the car and told them that he had shot Goodson in the head. Goodson\u2019s brother found Goodson dead in the bedroom. The above evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain appellant\u2019s conviction.\nOn September 22, 1980, appellant was questioned concerning the murder but was released. Then on July 28, 1981, appellant was served with a warrant for murder of the deceased while being held in jail on an unrelated charge. He was taken to a CID unit for questioning, where he was advised of his rights. He subsequently gave a statement, which was written out by an officer but signed by appellant.\nAppellant argues that this statement was involuntary and should have been suppressed. This contention is without merit. The applicable law is well settled. If the individual is in custody when the statement is given the burden is on the state to prove that it was voluntarily given. Harvey v. State, 272 Ark. 19, 611 S.W.2d 762 (1981). This determination is made based upon the totality of the circumstances at the time the statement was given. Coble v. State, 274 Ark. 134, 624 S.W.2d 421 (1981). On appeal we review the evidence and make an independent determination as to the issue of voluntariness. Hunes v. State, 274 Ark. 268, 623 S.W.2d 835(1981).\nAppellant alleges that his statement was involuntary because of the time of the statement he had been drinking and had taken \u201cBlues and Tees.\u201d However, the officer taking the statement testified that appellant was very coherent and did not have problems communicating. Appellant claims that the officers told him if he made a statement he would not be harmed, and that he asked to telephone an attorney but was not allowed to do so. These allegations were also disputed by the officer, who testified that he did not remember appellant requesting to use the telephone and that no threats or force was used to get appellant to make the statement. In fact, the appellant himself testified that the officers did not threaten him, and that he \u201cjust went on and signed the papers to get it over with.\u201d Appellant alleges he only had an eighth grade education; however, the officers testified that appellant stated he had an eleventh grade education,' and a notation \u201c11th grade\u201d appears on the rights form and appellant\u2019s statement.\nWhen the testimony is conflicting as to voluntariness, it is for the trial court to weigh the evidence and resolve the credibility of the witnesses. Lockett v. State, 275 Ark. 338, 629 S.W.2d 302 (1982). Here, the trial court resolved the credibility issue in favor of the state, and we cannot say its finding was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.\nAppellant also argues that the trial court erred in admitting two photographs of the deceased. One photograph showed the deceased as he was found and the other showed the wound the victim had received. We have consistently held that. the question of admissibility of photographs lies largely within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Here, the first photograph corroborated the testimony of the witness who found the body, and the second photograph aided the Chief Criminologist for the State Crime Lab in his testimony. The fact that there was a stipulation as to the cause of death did not make the second photograph inadmissible. Rodgers v. State, 261 Ark. 293, 547 S.W.2d 419 (1977). Furthermore, both photographs were, relevant to the nature and extent of the wounds. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the two photographs.\nWe have examined all objections pursuant to Rule 11 (f), Rules of the Supreme Court, Ark. Stat. Ann., Vol. 3A (Repl. 1977) and find no error. See Earl v. State, 272 Ark. 5, 611 S.W.2d 98(1981).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard A. Grant and Wayne A. Gruber, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Michael E. Wheeler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gary Wayne FULLER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 82-140\n646 S.W.2d 700\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 28, 1983\nRichard A. Grant and Wayne A. Gruber, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Michael E. Wheeler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0450-01",
  "first_page_order": 480,
  "last_page_order": 483
}