Case Title: Oliver v. State

Citation: 312 Ark. 466, 851 S.W.2d 415

Docket Number: 92-1071

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1993-04-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
851 S.W.2d 415 (1993) 312 Ark. 466 Timothy OLIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee, No. 92-1071. Supreme Court of Arkansas. April 5, 1993. Dana A. Reece, Little Rock, for appellant. Teena L. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee. HAYS, Justice. This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to transfer a capital murder case to juvenile court. We find no merit to the appeal. On March 27, 1992, appellant Timothy Oliver, aged fifteen, was arrested and charged with two counts of capital murder, along with three others, all codefendants. The charges arose from the brutal slaying of the parents of one of the codefendants in which all four youths participated. The couple was found dead in the bedroom of their DeQueen home on March 24 after reports that neither had been seen for several days. The police went to the couple's home and found them slain in their bed, both victims of bludgeoning and multiple stab wounds. The son of the couple gave a confession of his involvement on March 25, 1992, and *416 implicated his three friends, including Oliver. Oliver was interviewed on March 26 and gave a confession which detailed his involvement in the murders. Oliver's account of the murders included the following excerpt: As a fifteen-year-old charged with capital murder, it was at the prosecutor's discretion whether to charge Oliver as a juvenile or an adult, Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-319(b) (1987). In this case Oliver was charged as an adult, and Oliver then moved to transfer the case to juvenile court under Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-318(d) (1987). A hearing on the transfer was held on May 20, 1992, and Oliver's motion was denied. He brings this interlocutory appeal under the authority of § 9-27-318(h). Oliver does not dispute the trial court's refusal to transfer. Rather, he argues the trial court erred in denying a motion for a continuance he had made prior to and again at the hearing to obtain psychological testing. He insists that because the court failed to grant the continuance he was prevented from presenting evidence of rehabilitation potential and character traits that the court may consider in a transfer hearing under § 9-27-318. We first note that the request below was not for a continuance for general psychological testing, as appellant argues on appeal, but for a continuance to raise funds from appellant's family for a private psychologist to administer intelligence and achievement tests. On April 30, 1992, Oliver filed a motion for state funds to pay for a psychologist *417 for the purpose of "assistance of a psychologist to perform IQ testing and other achievement tests." On May 14, 1992, Oliver filed a second motion in regards to the upcoming May 20th transfer hearing, requesting a continuance because "additional time is needed for a psychological evaluation of defendant prior to said hearing." Neither of the motions was ruled on prior to the May 20th hearing. At the May 20th hearing appellant addressed both motions and in the first, stated: The Court responded: From that context of the hearing it appears the request for the psychologist was not for the purpose of testing for character traits and rehabilitation potential but for testing appellant's intelligence through IQ and achievement tests. It was also evident that the continuance was not for the psychological testing itself, but for time to raise money from appellant's family for private testing. An appellant may not change the basis for his argument or raise a new argument on appeal, but is limited to what was requested in the trial court. Harris v. State, 295 Ark. 456, 748 S.W.2d 666 (1988). The issue on appeal then is whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance to allow appellant time to raise money from his family for the purpose of hiring a private psychologist to administer IQ and achievement tests. The burden is on the movant to show good cause for a continuance. Arkansas R.Crim.P. 27.3. A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the court's discretion will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of the discretion. David v. State, 295 Ark. 131, 748 S.W.2d 117 (1988). The burden of proving prejudice and an abuse of discretion rests on the appellant. Kelley v. State, 261 Ark. 31, 545 S.W.2d 919 (1977); David v. State, supra. The court considers several factors in considering whether a continuance should be granted, including: 1) diligence of the movant; 2) probable effect of the testimony; 3) relevance of the testimony; and 4) the likelihood of procuring the evidence or witness sought. Touvell v. State, 299 Ark. 375, 772 S.W.2d 347 (1989). We have not given equal weight to these factors, but have considered them in the context of the facts of each case. See e.g. Touvell v. State, supra; Mann v. State, 291 Ark. 4, 722 S.W.2d 266 (1987). This case is similar to Touvell v. State, supra, where we found the factors weighing most heavily were the relevance of the evidence and the probable effect of the testimony. As in Touvell, there was other evidence here that made the information appellant was seeking by way of continuance merely cumulative. There was evidence of appellant's general intelligence level and achievement levels through the testimony of his school counselor and the *418 school's records of appellant's grades and standardized testing over the last three years. We believe these tests were sufficient to apprise the court of appellant's intellectual and scholastic abilities for purposes of the transfer issue. Appellant has not shown how greater development of this sub-issue would have been helpful to the judge. Further, appellant did not apprise the court of the likelihood of securing funds from appellant's family nor how long such a project might take. There was no showing that it could have been accomplished speedily while this capital murder trial remained pending. In light of the fact that the court offered testing through the state hospital, which appellant has not argued would be inferior to private testing, there has been no showing of an abuse of discretion by the trial court nor any prejudice resulting from the denial of a continuance. Finally, we note trial court's offer to appellant at the close of the hearing: The court in effect gave appellant additional time and there is nothing in the record to show this was utilized. Affirmed.