Case Title: Williams v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: cr96-848

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Houston WILLIAMS and Kathlene Williams v.
STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-848                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered May 12, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- petition for review -- case treated as if
     before supreme court in first instance. -- When the supreme
     court grants a petition to review a case decided by the
     Arkansas Court of Appeals, the court treats it as if it were
     before it in the first appellate instance.

2.   Appeal & error -- judgment appealed from is bare essential of
     abstract -- failure to include appropriate judgment may make
     it flagrantly deficient. -- The judgment appealed from is a
     bare essential of an abstract; ordinarily the basic pleadings
     and judgment or decree appealed from are essential
     constituents of the abstract; the failure to include the
     appropriate judgment and commitment order in the abstract may
     make it "flagrantly deficient." 

3.   Appeal & error -- abstract complete and exemplary but for
     omission of judgment -- abstract not found to be flagrantly
     deficient. -- Where appellants' counsel mistakenly presented
     the judgment and commitment order from a previous conviction
     and not the one relevant to this case; but, except for the
     omission of the judgment and commitment order, the abstract
     was complete and exemplary, the supreme court chose not to
     declare appellant's abstract "flagrantly deficient";
     appellant's uncontested statement of the case made it clear
     that appellant was convicted of conspiracy to deliver
     methamphetamine and that he was sentenced to thirty years'
     imprisonment for that offense; while an abstract of the
     judgment from which the appeal comes is "ordinarily" required,
     its absence does not necessarily constitute a flagrant
     deficiency requiring affirmance.

4.   Criminal law -- accomplices -- defendant in criminal case has
     burden of proof that witness is accomplice whose testimony
     must be corroborated. -- The defendant in a criminal case has
     the burden of proof that a witness is an accomplice whose
     testimony must therefore be corroborated; whether a witness is
     an accomplice is usually a mixed question of fact and law, and
     the finding of a jury as to whether a witness is an accomplice
     is binding unless the evidence shows conclusively that the
     witness was an accomplice.

5.   Criminal law -- witnesses to crimes aided appellants in
     committing offense of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine --
     witnesses were accomplices to crime. -- Where the testimony of
     the witnesses "showed conclusively" that they aided, agreed to
     aid, or attempted to aid the appellants in planning or
     committing (1) the offense of conspiracy to deliver
     methamphetamine and (2) the offense of delivery; the witnesses
     so acted "with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the
     commission of" the offenses; there was no question that they,
     acting "with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the
     commission" of delivery of methamphetamine, agreed with the
     appellants (1) that one or more of them would engage in
     conduct that constitutes delivery of methamphetamine, or (2)
     that the witnesses would "aid in the planning or commission"
     of that offense, there was no question that the appellants and
     the witnesses committed several "overt acts" in pursuance of
     the conspiracy.

6.   Evidence -- dismissal warranted when only evidence was given
     by accomplice. -- In instances in which the only evidence was
     given by an accomplice or by accomplices, the supreme court
     has found the evidence insufficient and ordered dismissal
     rather than remand for a new trial.   
 
7.   Evidence -- testimony of accomplices insufficient without
     corroboration -- retrial of defendant would result in double
     jeopardy -- case reversed and dismissed. -- In view of the
     fact that the only evidence against the appellants came from
     accomplices and there was no evidence to corroborate their
     testimony, the State's proof was insufficient; retrial of a
     defendant in these circumstances would result in him or her
     being placed twice in jeopardy of being convicted of a crime; 
     if an accused must be acquitted if the State's case is based
     on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, then that
     determination on appeal prohibits retrial just as it does when
     acquittal occurs at the trial; the case was reversed and
     dismissed.


     Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; William A. Storey,
Judge; reversed and dismissed.
     Kent McLemore and Finch & Gartin, by:  Jay T. Finch, for
appellants.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Clint Miller, Acting Deputy
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     David Newbern, Justice.
     Houston and Kathlene Williams were convicted of conspiracy,
Ark. Code Ann.  5-3-401 (Repl. 1993), to deliver methamphetamine. 
Ark. Code Ann.  5-64-401(a) (Supp. 1995).  The primary evidence
against them came from testimony given by Henry and Terry
Glosemeyer.  There was additional testimony from police officers
and a chemist, but the only evidence given by those witnesses that
implicated the Williamses came from the Glosemeyers or from Fred
Colvin.  Mr. Colvin, who did not testify, had given a statement to
a police officer implicating the Williamses as drug dealers.  Mr.
Colvin was pronounced by the Trial Court to be an accomplice to the
conspiracy as a matter of law.  The Trial Court left the question
whether the Glosemeyers were accomplices to the jury.  
     It was the contention of the Williamses at the trial that the
Glosemeyers should have been declared accomplices as a matter of
law by the Trial Court, and therefore, as there was no
corroborating evidence, their motions for directed verdict should
have been granted.  That has remained their primary contention on
appeal.
     The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions by a
tie vote,  Williams v. State, 54 Ark. App. 271, 927 S.W.2d 812
(1996), and we granted the Williamses' petition for review.  We
agree that corroborating evidence was required. As there was none,
it was error to deny the directed verdict motions.  We reverse and
dismiss the convictions.  
     When we grant a petition to review a case decided by the Court
of Appeals, we treat it as if it were before us in the first
appellate instance.  Allen v. State, 326 Ark. 541, 932 S.W.2d 764
(1996).  In reviewing Mr. Williams's abstract, we noted that his
counsel mistakenly presented the judgment and commitment order from
a previous conviction of Mr. Williams for possession with intent to
deliver methamphetamine and marijuana and not the one relevant to
this case.  Although the State has not raised an issue as to the
inadequacy of Mr. Williams's abstract, we must address it.  
     In Winters v. Elders, 324 Ark. 246, 247, 920 S.W.2d 833, 834
(1996), we said we have "long held that the judgment appealed from
is a bare essential of an abstract" and cited numerous cases.  In
Jolly v. Hartje, 294 Ark. 16, 18,