{
  "id": 1892729,
  "name": "James Edward HURST v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hurst v. State",
  "decision_date": "1988-10-10",
  "docket_number": "CR 88-63",
  "first_page": "448",
  "last_page": "451",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "296 Ark. 448"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "757 S.W.2d 558"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "294 Ark. 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1895795
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/294/0287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 Ark. 341",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893782
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/295/0341-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S. Ct. 1076",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 Ark. 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1869762
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/293/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892700
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0135-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 321,
    "char_count": 4187,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.847,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3804294274900208e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6404066414682864
    },
    "sha256": "e3e491c9a20a3e8fd8e5957610c2ccf780f8f7dcb02a0218327a3eb85a3fe682",
    "simhash": "1:812023c47cd2aaa2",
    "word_count": 713
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:25:51.901471+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Edward HURST v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nJames Edward Hurst was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. He shot his father four times with a .22 pistol at his father\u2019s mobile home in southwest Little Rock. Hurst was present when police arrived on the scene. He stated that two men had entered the trailer, fired shots and left in a Camaro. The next day when police questioned him further, he broke down and confessed to killing his father.\nThree arguments are made on appeal. Hurst claims first that he confessed before he was advised of his Miranda rights; second, that the Miranda warning eventually given was defective; and finally, that his confession was not voluntarily given. We find no merit in any of these arguments and affirm the trial court\u2019s decision to admit the confession into evidence.\nAt the suppression hearing, Detective Ivan Jones disputed Hurst\u2019s claim that he incriminated himself before the Miranda warnings were given. Hurst had been brought to the station to go over his witness statement made the previous day. After briefly questioning Hurst, Jones was convinced the statement was untrue. He then informed Hurst he was a suspect and called in another officer to witness the Miranda warnings. According to Jones, Hurst did not confess before his rights were read to him.\nWe will not disturb the trial court\u2019s ruling on this point. Detective Jones disputed the appellant\u2019s version of what occurred. This is a matter of credibility that is best determined by the trial judge. Jones v. State, 296 Ark. 135, 752 S.W.2d 274 (1988).\nThe rights form used by the officers in this case contained the same defect as the form in Mayfield v. State, 293 Ark. 216, 736 S.W.2d 12 (1987), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 1076 (1988), in that it did not adequately convey to the indigent accused his right to have counsel free of charge. Hurst was crying as his rights were being read to him. He expressed fear that his family would not help him. Detective Fulks, the other officer present when the warning was given, testified that he told Hurst \u201cif the family wouldn\u2019t help him . . .the court would appoint him an attorney. In fact. . . they would appoint him a public defender.\u201d He also told Hurst \u201cif the family would not hire him an attorney, and they couldn\u2019t afford one ... the state would appoint a public defender.\u201d\nThe trial judge found that these statements by Detective Fulks were sufficient to advise Hurst of his right to appointed counsel. We agree. In Mitchell v. State, 295 Ark. 341, 750 S.W.2d 936 (1988), we held that a similar deficiency in a rights form was cured when an officer orally informed the accused that if he could not afford a lawyer, one would be appointed. In this case we also find that the verbal explanation by the detective adequately apprised the accused of his right to appointed counsel.\nFinally, we address the issue of the voluntariness of the confession. After the Miranda warnings were given, Hurst gave a detailed confession. He also led police to an area where he had disposed of the murder weapon and a briefcase he had taken from the trailer.\nIn determining the voluntariness of a confession, this court makes an independent review of the totality of the circumstances and reverses only if the trial court\u2019s finding is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Scherrer v. State, 294 Ark. 287, 742 S.W.2d 884 (1988). Here we consider Hurst\u2019s age of 17; his 11th grade education; the short period of detention before the confession was given; his familiarity with the legal process (he had been recently convicted of robbery); and the police testimony that no coercion was used to obtain the confession.\nIn view of these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court\u2019s ruling that the confession was voluntary was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.\nWe find the record contains no other reversible errors. Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 11(f).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Allen Law Firm, by: Thomas J. O\u2019Hern, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: O\u00edan W. Reeves, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Edward HURST v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 88-63\n757 S.W.2d 558\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 10, 1988\nAllen Law Firm, by: Thomas J. O\u2019Hern, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: O\u00edan W. Reeves, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0448-01",
  "first_page_order": 474,
  "last_page_order": 477
}